What Is Love?
A reader of this blog shared a Huffington Post article with me last week.
In it, author Sheryl Paul writes:
“We live under a massive cultural delusion about the nature of real love. Propagated by mainstream media, from the time you’re born you’re inundated with the belief that love is a feeling and that when you find “the one” you’ll sense it in your gut.”
And:
“We have mythologized love to such an extent that people are no longer prepared for the realities of long-term relationships. We are taught that it is good not to compromise, not to put up with anything we don’t like, not to sacrifice our own beliefs for anyone or anything. Yet compromise and sacrifice are the cornerstones of marital love.”
Isn’t it possible that the problem isn’t with the opposite sex, itself but rather your expectations of the opposite sex?
She quotes another author, Kate Kerrigan, in an essay she wrote called Marriage Myths, as saying that “the best thing you can bring to a marriage is not the feeling of ‘being in love’, but romance’s poor relation: tolerance.”
Paul, who works as a counselor, says that “it’s a crushing moment for couples when the infatuation drug wears off and they’re left to begin the real work of loving.”
This is all stuff you’ve read here before. I find it pretty much irrefutable.
But for those who want to refute it – for those who say you should never compromise – even though every happy couple in the world will let you know how much they compromise on a daily basis – what exactly are you hoping for in a partner?
And isn’t it possible that the problem isn’t with the opposite sex, itself but rather your expectations of the opposite sex?
In short, great relationships are understanding what you should compromise on. You DON’T compromise on character, integrity, kindness, devotion, and selflessness. You DO compromise on everything else.
Read the article here and let me know what you think I’m getting wrong. You always do. 
 |
Why He Disappeared is the smart, strong, successful woman's guide to understanding men. If you want to learn how men think, and rediscover how to have meaningful relationships - all from a man's point of view - click here to learn Why He Disappeared. |
Do You Want to Attract the Partner of Your Dreams?
If so, sign up for my free dating and relationship newsletter and receive my free eBook, The 5 Massive Mistakes You're Making In Your Love Life - And How to Turn Them Around Instantly. Simple and effective advice to jumpstart your love life.
164 Comments »Filed Under Chemistry, Dating, Marriage, Relationships
Jane 1
To be honest, the article sounds a little preachy. I agree with many of the points made, but the tone was so serious and foreboding…. shouldn’t love also be a little fun some of the time?
Karl R 2
Jane asked: (#1)
“shouldn’t love also be a little fun some of the time?”
Relationships should be fun some of the time, but that’s not an expression of love. In addition to loving your partner, you should also like your partner, and we like people who are fun (among other things).
But neither of those is related to the chemistry of infatuation, which is what people mistake for being “love”.
Fiona 3
I fully agree that it is ridiculous to expect someone else to complete you – you have to complete yourself! However, this reads as though we can all just go out and love the next nice person of the opposite sex that we meet. If it were that simple, no-one would be single beyond puberty. Clearly, it isn’t. Speaking to people in my parents’ and grandparents’ generation, they had chemistry to start with too. It is not just us!
Zaq 4
Someone who is always loyal.
Someone who will remain your friend.
Someone who isn’t ashamed of showing physical affection – even in public
Someone whose greatest joy is to be by your side.
Someone who cannot contain their excitement when you arrive home.
Someone who … is your dog !
Seriously, Infatuation is an incredible rush caused by hormones. Its a chemical high and its something YOU experience rather than share. Love is something you DO
JM 5
I believe this to be true. All of it. But the men I meet all seem to think it’s all about chemistry. They are single, late 30s-early 40s, never married, few long-term relationships. It’s funny because they are attractive, smart, successful, but hold out for that special feeling. Even if she is not very attractive, emotionally scarred, etc. as long as “it” is there, they are smitten. I just don’t get it. And with internet dating, if the big spark isn’t there on the first date, forget it. It’s really frustrating.
susan 6
Fiona that is so true. All this stuff about CHOOSING to love someone? well maybe, but only if you’ve been lucky enough to get swept up in the infatuation stage first…i read somewhere that the rush of hormones that causes will last just about long enough for someone to decide whether or not they actually want to learn how to like, and love, the other person. The feel-goods allow us to literally ”feel good” as we get to know them, and then it’s NOT clinical, it’s not CHOOSING based on a list of criteria, but it is giving us space to FEEL.
As for chemistry – heck yes. I was to beleive it can develop but the reality is, it can’t. it’s either there or it isn’t. Women can often grow it, guys can’t.
Karl R 7
JM said: (#5)
“the men I meet all seem to think it’s all about chemistry.”
As a man, I felt that way aboutall the women I met online, and most of the women I met offline.
You can’t change other people. But by doing the right thing, you ultimately benefit.
Zaq 8
“the men I meet all seem to think it’s all about chemistry.”
Women have much more of an issue here than men who are genetically programmed to be attracted to a larger range of females.
Karl R 9
susan said: (#6)
“i read somewhere that the rush of hormones that causes will last just about long enough for someone to decide whether or not they actually want to learn how to like, and love, the other person.”
The chemicals last 1-3 years. That can be long enough to meet someone, marry them, have a child … then discover that you don’t even like the person when the chemicals wear off.
That’s why people like Evan, Helen (the Helen who is married), Selena, A-L and I put so little faith in “chemistry”.
As I pointed out to JM, most of the men and women will use “chemistry” to make their decisions. If nobody is looking at the important details (shared values, etc.), then the whole thing can become a train wreck. Furthermore, if you are willing to look at some potential partners where there isn’t an intense rush of infatuation, you’ve expanded your dating pool.
And if I expect to spend 30-40 years of marriage not being infatuated with this person, why do I have to spend the 1-2 years of dating on a chemical high? It’s hardly the best predictor (or preparation) for the long run.
Fiona 10
Of course Karl these things are important. However, without chemistry, I can’t bear someone to kiss me let alone let them sleep with me so it is an essential ingredient for starting a relationship as much as shared values. I am not suggesting that we should overlook shared values or allow chemistry to blind us – we need both.
Susan@6, although I don’t agree with Karl that chemistry isn’t important, I have learned to avoid getting involved where there is chemistry without compatibility. My argument is that you need both. Basically I apply the test: am I looking forward to seeing this guy and I feel good about it (usually accompanied by feeling safe and secure) or am I excited about seeing this guy and I feel bad about it (usually accompanied by feeling out of control and an impending sense of doom)? If the latter, I have learned to run for the hills as it always ends badly (for me). However, the second date with the no chemistry guy is also enough to send me running because it feels just as wrong as dating danger man.
Peter 11
Instant “every cell on fire” chemistry will betray you and destroy you. Certainly, if you are over 25 then the man/woman attractive enough to do that to you has done it to others and walked away from them. Modern Africans (Zambians) see romantic love as a disease. Brain scans are identical with obsessive compulsive disorders.
There are other forms of chemistry that grow more slowly. If sex on a first date with someone who meets your tick list isn’t your requirement you can get there. Being around each other as friends long enough to forget what you look like, how old you are, what language you speak etc so that nothing is left in the way but your style of personal interaction is a good way to go. You need to get out through the door to make this happen.
The Greeks had a classification of different types of love. Helen (Fisher?), the name escapes me, talks about several endocrine systems that produce some of these various feelings. I suspect that there are more.
starthrower 12
I think the fact that there needs to be some chemistry is assumed and most intelligent adults will get that. But I can attest firsthand to what Evan is saying here. I have been with my SO now for about 4 or 5 months and I admit, I was very unsure about him at first. Instead of writing him off and letting the chemistry develop I paid attention to that still, small voice that said “this is a person of character, decency, and good values so hang in there and see what happens”. We had good conversational chemistry; we share faith. We had agreement on a lot of things. I am pleased to report that as a result of listening to that still, small voice, I am very happy in this relationship and we both are in it for the long haul. The physical attraction has grown for me, but I’m also mature enough to realize that hey, I’m never again going to look like I did at 19 but I have his unconditional acceptance and love and he has mine.
Peter, I think the one sort of love the Greeks spoke of, and the most important love to have in a good relationship is the Agape love. That is what they called altruistic love. Now, that’s not to say that we completely ignore our needs and wants; but if we purpose to find a good partner, they will meet our needs and we will meet theirs. One of the things I am fully conscious of with Tim is that I don’t ever want to do anything to hurt him. Don’t misunderstand; I’m not with him merely to keep from hurting him. I truly do love him. But I have learned that because it’s without that compulsive dependence and neediness or I am not viewing him through the filter of what we are taught love is supposed to be in our consumerist, drive-by, entertainment culture, I’m seeing things clearly and it’s a very healthy relationship.
starthrower 13
Apologies for the 2nd post here, but I didn’t pay adequate attention to my phrasing, so what I meant to say was, I didn’t write him off; I gave the chemistry a chance to grow and develop. It continues to get better because there is a good balance of chemistry and compatibility thus the relationship can be sustained, rather than fizzle out as quick as it started.
David T 14
I can see a movie when I am in one mood and think it is stupid, or maybe a little funny. . . .or in another mood and my stomach will hurt from laughing so hard for so long.
[referring to men's response] “with internet dating, if the big spark isn’t there on the first date, forget it. It’s really frustrating”
There are men AND women who play at dating this way and Fiona is one of them. I went out on two dates with another. We got along had a great deal of fun talking . . . and she told me point blank after 3 hours in a wine bar and one hour more casual get together in a coffee shop that we might be friends, but never anything more, because she “knows” how she works and if she doesn’t feel it right away she never will.
Chemistry is as much about how a person feels that day as who they are meeting. You could have had a long stressful day at work, or not slept well the night before or be coming down with something and guess what. . you will feel little or no chemistry. Meet the same person while feeling peaceful and contented and the sparks might fly. A good mood does not guarantee chemistry and a blah mood or feeling poorly physically can extinguish it.
A love relationship needs some chemistry, but if I restrict myself to knowing someone for a handful of hours before deciding if chemistry is there or not I know I will lose opportunities sometimes because I was not in the right mood.
henriette 15
I have the same experience as JM (5). I find that men are generally the more romantic sex, believing that instant “click” is the best way to predict a good life partner. If anything, I’d say that most women — or, the ones who end up married — are actually quite steely-eyed in picking a husbaand; most I know measure up a guy’s financial prospects, genetic promise (if they want kids) and general compatability and then make a decision whether or not they want him. The smart/conniving ones try to ensure that as many guys as possible believe they have a special & unique click with her… then she winnows down her suitors to the one she thinks (yes: thinks. It’s all a deeply rational process) will give her what she wants most. No wonder I’m still single : )
Fiona 16
David @14. I am meeting these guys twice – even if they are having an off day, they are getting a second chance but if it isn’t there after that, I think it makes sense to get out. Sure I can keep meeting up over and over again with someone that I have no feelings for but what am I supposed to do when he tries to kiss me? Just put up with it and grin and bear it even though I really don’t want to and am fighting the gag reflex? By date three this is going to be an awkward problem so I get out before I end up having to kiss someone I am repulsed by or hurt their feelings (and hurting their feelings is clearly the only realistic option in that scenario).
Fiona 17
Starthrower@12 – I am happy for you but please don’t assume that we can all magically develop chemistry with someone that is a nice guy after a long period of time just because they are a nice guy. I know Evan thinks men tend to have chemistry up front but for women it develops over time. All I can say is that I think there are a lot more women who are just like men in this regard than he thinks. I went on a second date all afternoon with a friend of a friend yesterday – we had a great afternoon. I really like him as a person and we get on well. However, on my way home all I could think was ‘I wish this train would hurry up so he won’t try to kiss me’. Thankfully it did and I could get away with offering my cheek. He of course really wants to meet again. I want to run for the hills. I really like him as a potential friend but I have to get out of this for his sake and mine because I hate the idea of him kissing me. I don’t see that I can just ignore the fact that I am not at all attracted to this man and hope that I will magically feel better about if next week. It is a flashing red warning sign telling me not to proceed.
Stacey 18
A relationship without chemistry is a roomate relationship.
susan 19
good for you starthrower, a very sensible approach…except i would still argue that ”conversational chemistry” is a spark by any other name.
Heather 20
Evan, you have that spot on.
My former marriage was a PRIME example of this. My ex never chose to love me. He got angry when I’d get sick. He was always angry that I could not drive, even though it had been discussed up front, when we met and started dating. Yet even though he had a chronic illness, I cleaned up after him, comforted him, CHOSE to love him despite all the abuse I got in return.
Love is a choice; it is a verb. And that is precisely why I am not sure I want to marry again, because very few people that I run into anymore, at least here where I live, are interested in choosing to love. They leave a relationship the minute the sparks are gone, and blow it off by saying, “I woke up one morning and realized, I just didn’t love him/her anymore.” Or, “I needed to find ME again, and I couldn’t do that in a marriage.”
If I meet a man or my current guy keeps on proving that he will choose to love me in good times and bad, then I’ll marry. Until then, I’m staying single. It’s better than dealing with people who choose not to compromise, choose not to love, choose not to put the marriage/relationship first.
I gotta agree with Zaq’s comment above about a dog…..you can certainly get that kind of love and acceptance from a pup!
Mia 21
I just don’t get how love should be that complicated. I don’t believe you “just know,” and have given all sorts of men a chance (bald, shorter than me, make less money than me, less attractive – all those men had great personalitie, though). It would be nice if more men gave ME a chance, however. I’ve observed two things: a.) men, even the less attractive ones, need to have insane chemistry to give you a chance, and have a feeling that they just “know”; and/or b.) men often don’t feel like having a relationship for years, then suddenly in their early/mid 30s decide they want to get married and the next nice woman that comes along, even if he is not as cool as some of the girls he dated in the past, he’ll marry. It’s very frustrating because as a woman I cannot control this situation and don’t believe in limiting myself to either good timing or instant chemistry.
I am a big fan of Evan but also find it interesting that he gives this kind of advice when he talks about dating 300 women to find his wife. Sorry, that appears to be an example of someone being WAY too picky and looking for crazy chemistry/ playing around for years until they’re ready. I’d guess that there were women who were just as good a fit for him as his wife that he met 3 or 5 years earlier, but he wasn’t ready and passed on them. I’m only 28 but starting to despair that I will meet a man who shares my fairly simple desire to find someone we can be ourselves with, want to have sex with (no, they don’t need a perfect body or looks), shares similar values about life and is emotionally open to sharing a life together. Achieving something so straightforward shouldn’t have to feel like nuclear physics.
David T 22
@Fiona 16
You misunderstood me. I said that if *you* are having an off day or are in the wrong mood, *you* won’t feel chemistry towards anyone else. It is your mood and what is going on your life that can stop you from feeling chemistry. Even if these are subtle things like starting to come down with something, or have been stressed out for most of the last 8 hours, it will decrease your ability to be receptive.
Even in relationships with established chemistry, when someone is sick or going through emotional distress in other parts of their lives, that person will not feel as turned. The love within the relationship and need for emotional support will keep them together and loving (though when someone is VERY ill or VERY upset they will sometimes push away even those closest to them). If you have just met someone, there is no love or intimate emotional support and there will be no click.
Tegan 23
This article has helped me a great deal, I’ve been I a relationship for almos two years now, for the first year and a few months I felt head over heels in love. Then suddenly one day I woke up and this infatuation feeling had gone. I cried about it and felt like I no longer loved the man I had gone through so much with. He’s my best friend and my soul mate, but I don’t feel the inlove feeling. I act on it. I make sure he knows that I love him even when I feel like perhaps I don’t as much now. After I randomly ‘fell out of love’ i searched everywhere to find a way to fall back in love or find out what the hell was wrong with me! Luckily, I found out… You don’t feel stupidly in love forever! I’m happy with my relationship and that’s all I need. I know I’ll be able to tolerate my man for the rest of my life because he’s my best friend first and also my lover. In a way I do wish for the loving chesmistry feeling to return but I don’t need it, Im loyal and a hard worker in this relationship and I don’t want anything to ruin that! Thankyou!
Evan Marc Katz 24
@Mia “It would be nice if more men gave ME a chance, however. I’ve observed two things: a.) men, even the less attractive ones, need to have insane chemistry to give you a chance, and have a feeling that they just “know”; and/or b.) men often don’t feel like having a relationship for years”
This part is true. EVERYONE is a slave to chemistry. I just happen to give advice to women. The same could apply to men.
“I am a big fan of Evan but also find it interesting that he gives this kind of advice when he talks about dating 300 women to find his wife. Sorry, that appears to be an example of someone being WAY too picky and looking for crazy chemistry/ playing around for years until they’re ready. I’d guess that there were women who were just as good a fit for him as his wife that he met 3 or 5 years earlier, but he wasn’t ready and passed on them.”
Yes and no. Yes, I dated a lot from 25-35 years old. Yes, I was a blind believer in chemistry. But what you got egregiously wrong, Mia, is that my entire dating coaching platform is BECAUSE I realized the error in my ways and was way too picky. This is exactly what I’m cautioning you against. You don’t have to go on 300 dates to fall in love. You have to date long enough to find a good guy who gets what I didn’t get. The other thing you missed is that my bachelorhood was a matter of playing around. Also incorrect. I fell deeply in love in 2003 at age 31. She dumped me. I fell in love again in 2004. She dumped me. Those experiences ALSO became core parts of my coaching – about the deception of passion (as Karl wrote about in #9). If I had been allowed to marry either of those women, I’d be FAR less happy than I am today. I underwent an evolution in order to discover how to date effectively; that’s all I try to share with you here. Try changing yourself instead of worrying about what men do wrong and you’ll be doing all that you can do to further your love life.
Evan Marc Katz 25
@Stacey – Where’s the part where it was suggested that a relationship shouldn’t have chemistry? I think I missed it.
Ellen 26
David @14- I have never not been able to gauge chemistry because of fatigue or a bad mood. Usually it is very apparent up front.
Sometimes, though, it does take several dates for the chemistry to mature like a fine wine though! My current boyfriend had to win me over a little. I had just come out of a stressful, manipulative relationship so had little patience with men at that point. Also, he was in his late fifties and I was used to dating much younger guys so he appeared old at first. Little by little, though, I noticed how amazingly fit, thin, strong, handsome he was despite some sun damage….
We have been dating for over four months now and he’s the first man in three years of online dating I could see living with someday maybe. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper with us.
But to return to the subject of chemistry, being mature and patient, once I gave a man a bit older than me a full month to make his case, ’cause we were very compatible spiritually (which is important to me). I also saw his intelligence, wit, (and he was reasonably handsome) but in the end I couldn’t sleep with him ’cause there was no spark that way with me. It was so hard telling him goodbye. He took it hard. Since then I am less inclined to make it a long, drawn-out process for that reason.
In my experience true, enduring love matches in or outside of marriage are rare (despite! common interests and values and hard, hard work on each person’s part), but I will advise my son to wait two full years before becoming engaged so he can be well past the “chemistry” phase when he commits.
Fiona 27
David@22 – I thought your complaint was that women are bailing out after two dates. You can’t put that down to a woman having two bad days or a life crisis. I suppose it is possible but more likely it means she’s just not into you and there is nothing you can do about it. It sucks, it happens to all of us but that’s life. Even when I was in a really bad place when I was sick and when I was stressed out of my mind with work, I was always happy to see/hear from my ex (although he understandably was so happy to hear from a tired, stressed out, sick person). If I am not attracted to a man on a date, it is not because I am having a bad day, it is because I am not attracted. That’s it. He can’t change that and nor can I. If I were really having a bad day, I can see no better way to improve it than a date with an attractive guy that shares the same values. I just have no idea where he is.
Mia 28
Evan, thanks for clarifying. I guess I’m just super frustrated that I’ve done sO much work on myself and keep putting mysElf out there and all the men I meet aren’t ready for a relationship or have their own issues. I just want my lucky break and I’m exhausted from trying and failing. I know Women who are ugly, or fat, or did not date much, or discardsd men for trivial reasons, and they are getting married and it just sucks that you can do so much right and not get anywhere.
Michael17 29
Mia #21 and #28:
I’m sorry for your pain. Where are you meeting these men? I can give you a couple of observations about my gender:
(1) Men are visual. For us, attraction is largely visual, “looks”. While women seem to be less visual than men are, and for them, attraction seems to be more about the “chemistry”, how well you banter and connect. Most of us guys have a physical type and if you’re not a guy’s physical type, it can be hard for the guy to feel attraction. My point is, I think the “chemistry” line that guys are giving you is a gentle let-down. Are guys seeing your picture before you go out with them? (I hope this question didn’t come across as insulting or prying or anything–I have no idea what you look like for one thing. Just trying to help…)
(2) We men do like to pursue. If you make things too easy for us (I noticed you use the phrase “putting yourself out there”) by being too proactive (e.g., you’re the one bringing up the idea of a second date) then that might be giving us pause.
Tom 30
Mia,
It’s like I’ve met you before and I really sympathise with your predicament. My friends (and I to a certain extent) are also 28 and are those guys you describe looking for that magic, and if we don’t find it we’re perfectly happy waiting (i.e. dating casually) for as long as it takes until we do, but it’s only because we want to get the best out of life too.
It’s the classic paradox of choice: being free to choose whoever we want, one would imagine that we’d make more informed choices. What actually happens is that because we constantly think there might be something better, we can’t make a decision at all. This new paradigm is probably one of the unforeseen consequences of the sexual revolution; the de-stigmatisation of pre-marital sex not only liberated women, but men as well. And some of us are perfectly happy enjoying this liberation.
If I meet a spectacular woman who blows my mind – great (happened once before), if I don’t – great, I’ll just continue dating casually until I do. I’m assuming at some point (in my mid-thirties as you say) the penny will drop and I’ll realise that this perfect woman doesn’t actually exist and it’s all just an artificial construct in my own head. Unfortunately you’re correct; there’s not a whole lot you can do to change these men but I really wish you the best of luck in your search because you seem like a great catch for someone!
Mia 31
Michael 17 — I’m very attractive, thin, and don’t pursue– I don’t play hard to get either, Just mirror the guy. I don’t expect looks to get me more than the first couple dates– my experience with men is they are not choosing ltrs on looks and i am often the more attracrive one anyway. For men it’s about chemistry and timing when they are choosing a woman. Where do I meet them? Some online, some through friends, some through work.
When I said putting myself out there I meant being open and warm. The most recent man was dorky cute and we clearly had a meaningful connection, but he just told me he is not in a place for a serous relationship bc of all the work he has to put in to opening his new business (it’s been covered by the local media and there’s a lot of excitement around it). He said this on our 9th date, after fooling around some but never pushing for sex and always picking me up for real dates, so I give him credit for not being sleazy. We met thru an old mutual friend. I highly doubt this is personal. But how do I have any control over this? It just seems like no guy has any room for me in their lives even though they often admire me a great deal, not Just for looks but sense of humor, quirkiness, independence, style, and sense of adventure. They just don’t HAVE to have me, and thats the bridge I have trouble crossing.
David T 32
Mia, if you made it clear you were looking for an LTR, then that guy was not so great. He was unself-aware or dishonorable if he goes 9(!) dates (what is that? 6 weeks? Two months??) and then says he is unavailable for a serious connection. Props to him for not pushing for sex. I wonder how long he knew this about himself before informing you.
I would be lying if I said I have never dated when I had doubts I was available for a serious relationship, but I usually manage to understand that (sometimes it is not obvious until you actually start picturing a dating relationship) and let them know by date one or two. Have that conversation sooner. You owe it to yourself.
Happy Person 33
Michael 17:
1) Women are visual. We just don’t TALK about being visual. And our expectations are lower because most men don’t put as much effort into being visually appealing as women do. But believe me, if you look hot, we notice it. And respond.
2) We women like to pursue. But we do it in a more subtle, passive way. We like to make you think that you’re the one doing the pursuing.
Fiona 34
Mia@31-I have been there in my 20s and I feel for you. In my view there are two types of men. Those who are commitment oriented and they usually do still settle down in their 20s (unless they are less than averagely attractive) and those that aren’t – catch them if you can in their 30s but you probably won’t. I would recommend that you keep going for the commitment oriented now no matter what it takes. At your age, I spent far too much time getting my heart broken by the Toms of this world and giving up for long periods of time and now I realise I will probably end up alone. You are too young to give up – get back out there!
susan 35
I like that comment Mia made ”they just don’t have to have me”. That about sums it up I reckon.
There are lots of awesome guys out there, who think that women like us are awesome too – but there are some serious flaws with modern ‘dating”
- the candyshop mentality that can go with casual dating and in particular online dating. always another cuter, smarter, etc. I was once date number 45 for a guy (he kept a list…). i saw him for a year, he broke my heart, moved on to date at least a dozen more and is now in love .
- the concept of casual in the first place. my belief is that few people actually want casual. most want real relationship, but casual is the way it’s done these days. otherwise you risk scaring off the other person if you take the ”one at a time” approach
- all these freaking rules. who does the pursuing. who does the flirting. who pays. should women be confident? coy? it does my head in!
Mia 36
Susan – I agree there are way too many rules, and some of them may get you a guy you wouldn’t even want, so I boiled it all down to a simple list to maximize the chance that I’m going to end up with someone right for me.
One of the biggest things is dropping into conversation on first or second dates something kind of unusual about myself that would attract like-minded people but scare away guy I don’t want anyway, like how I once took a solo road trip across the country, sleeping in the car and very low budget, and met loads of people. That way, men who are turned off by this know immediately the type of girl I am – sort of adventurous and independent – and the many guys who do like that kind of girl get to know what makes me more unique.
Also:
a.) I don’t play hard to get, because men who fall for that are emotionally immature and once they get you they lose interest – better to just mirror, as Evan talks about, and actually have a full life so you’re not pretending to not be available; b.) accept dates with and spend time with multiple men at a time – though no need to hook up with them; c.) never mention commitment or what you’re looking for for the first two months or so, or refer to any past dating drama; d.) no sex for about 6 -8 weeks – I don’t like men who would judge me based on when I have sex, so I’m not going to wait some absurd amount of time, but this is a good time frame to assess their intentions and feel comfortable; d.) always give someone 2 dates even if you’re not initially attracted and they’re bald or short or whatever; e.) maybe after 5 dates, call maybe once, randomly, to assess whether they’re the type of guy that is freaked out by a woman, gasp, initiating contact. If they are, even after you’ve been out a number of times, that would turn me off because I don’t want someone who has such rigid ideas of male/female role
Beyond that, sometimes I get a headache trying to process what all the rules are that I’m supposed to be doing, when all I really want to do is be the best version of myself.
Tom 37
There is an element of truth in what you advised Mia, Fiona. Although I’m not sure it’s as black and white as that; many commitment minded men really struggle with monogamy and many transient types, shall we say, would actually like a relationship but aren’t realistic in what they are hoping for, or lack the emotional tools to successfully navigate a real relationship.
You shouldn’t give up either though – you’re still young and obviously intelligent so you’ve a lot to offer someone. I really hope you succeed!
Laya 38
If there was one thing that I learned in dating that has helped me appreciate the great relationship that I am in now is this…men who are relationship oriented act like they want a relationship. They call consistently, they ask to see you again as soon as possible, they make you a priority etc..pretty much from the beginning. In the past, my mistake in dating was that I often interpreted these available, relationship type behaviors as meaning that he was sub-par and was not my equal. He seemed too eager for “me,” and that meant I was of higher value then he was. It actually turned me off a bit especially if I knew objectively that I was better looking. See women are visual too. I know how horrible this all sounds.
The reverse was true as well. If a guy was a bit unavailable…didn’t call right away or consistently, wasn’t always available, etc well then that meant to me that he was still deciding if I was his equal caliber. I was naturally more drawn and attracted to this guy. He was a challenge. It was only when I realized that men who are relationship oriented and available act accordingly. And men who don’t act this way are either not that into me (had to really set aside my pride) or are not relationship oriented. I gave relationship oriented men a chance and tried not to hold it against them when they acted like they wanted a relationship. I am now very happily in a relationship, which is heading toward marriage (my first at my age of 41 years old).
Mia I am just wondering out loud if some men may sense how you are very interested in a relationship/marriage…that it could make them back away. Perhaps my suggestion would be as other posters have suggested to go for the relationship oriented men over the less available ones. I know it made a huge difference for me.
Ruby 39
Mia #36
You say that you don’t play hard to get, but I wonder if you are giving too much too soon? I also find it odd that the man you were dating waited 9 weeks to tell you that he wasn’t looking for anything serious. Don’t think that playing hard to get is simply about “game-playing.” Think of it as a chance to step back and let the man come to you, to show you his true interest level and to give time for his feelings (and yours) to develop, and to not be too available too soon. Otherwise, it sounds like you are doing all the right things.
Try not to put too much pressure on yourself. You’re still quite young. Not everyone finds their soulmate by the age of 28, and yours could be just around the corner…
Selena 40
@Layla #38
Good post.
Yes, relationship oriented men are the ones who want to see you more than once a week. They call you often to “check in”. They make plans to see you in advance, not the last minute. You don’t have to wonder whether they are into you or not, they are around showing you that they are.
melie 41
This article is right on. I saw my own mothers dispare at not having the relationship with my day, that society sells us. It convinced me that there is something amiss. I found the answer via counseling, and lots of reading about relationships, successful marriage. However, he didn’t do the same, and after 28 years of struggle the marriage ended. He sought many ways to fulfill his relationship needs outside the marriage instead of putting in the necessary work at home. Se la vie.
Fiona 42
Tom@37 – I am going to be 37 in 3 weeks and my biological clock is about to stop altogether so either it is make a desperate last dash for the finish line and probably end up unhappily married to someone that I don’t love heart and soul (and having loved like that once settling for someone I don’t feel that way about sounds a bit like a life sentence) or find something else to do instead of having kids.
My point to Mia is that she can avoid getting into this situation if she keeps going now…I didn’t persevere enough at her age after disappointments. I wish I had!
Evan Marc Katz 43
@Fiona – Deep breath. Clear your head of incorrect, muddled absolutist thinking. Okay?
I met my wife when she was 37. We were married when she turned 39. We had our first baby at 41. Our second will be two months before her 43rd birthday.
There was no desperate last dash. There was no settling. There was just open, optimistic, trusting, consistent weekly dating. It’s not too late, but you have to let go of your negative story.
Elizabeth 44
Susan@35–You hit the nail on the head. Too many rules, stipulations, and assumptions with dating. So many landmines. One can’t just simply be interested, and just call the next after a date and say “Hey, I really enjoyed meeting you”. Otherwise, they are labeled “too easy”. Who pursues who, who pays, bla bla bla. Such a shame, a woman, can’t just be appreciative and wear her damn heart on her sleeve. I have had men sit across from me, and say “Ok, what’s wrong with you, why are you single”?! You know…perhaps you just won the winning ticket! Why does a woman have to have any issues because she is merely “single”? Why can’t a woman just be a great catch, have it together, be loyal, a great confidant, and not have found her better half? Why? Why do men wait for the other shoe to drop. So mcuh cynicism out there…especially with on-line dating. People are on there – to supposedly meet that “special person”–yet there is such a stigma about being online. How ridiculous. You often hear and read in profiles…”I have never done this before”–sure, you haven’t. Nobody wants to admit they met someone online. Why? Being on some on-line dating website doesn’t make one a horrible person.
Evan–why the stigma with on-line dating? Do men view women on-line as desperate? If a woman works all day, and doesn’t go out to bars and happy hour at all, what other ways or means does she have of possibly networking or meeting someone? I would love to know.
Laya@38–I do agree, that one needs to assess certain behaviors–which set apart the men who are ready and truly into being in a relationship. However, there “needs” to be that degree of chemistry too…yes? How do you force yourself to hold someone’s hand, much less kiss them. It’s such a personal act. You seem to have met someone at 41…maybe there is hope for me at 44.
Fiona–things could be worse. I am 44 yr olds…and single. What man will want to date or get serious with a woman my age? I have just accepted the idea of going solo from hereon. It is what it is. Whatever happens, happens for me. Don’t have any more expectations. No last dash for me. And as for children, that window of opportunity has closed up. Chalk it up to wasting valuable time in my early to mid-30′s – by dating men that were completely wrong for me.
For Fiona@17–I fully agree. I recently went out on a date with a “very nice guy”–clearly he is interested and ready for a relationship. But I just couldn’t even bear to hold his hand. Didn’t want to get close at all. I need to be true to myself, and I can’t fake chemistry – or make a square peg fit in a round hole. can’t do it. Super nice guy-he just wasn’t attractive –to me. Not for me. Wish he was. oh well.
Happy Person 45
Fiona 42: And just because we women hardly ever get this message (not to contradict anything EMK is saying, because he really hates that
)–it’s also OK if you don’t have children. It really, really, really is. There are lots and lots of joyful things to go around.
SS 46
Mia @31: I was you six years ago. 28 and never lacking for dates (okay, well, sometimes), but men didn’t want to commit.
Honestly, you can’t control what they do. The only thing you can do is make a commitment to yourself that as soon as you get the message from them that they don’t want a commitment, RUN. Do not hang around being friends or keep dating. Just go. On to the next one.
It’s very frustrating, I know, but don’t allow them to take up space in your head and your heart. And while you can’t find out immediately if they want a commitment or not, pay attention to their behavior over the course of your dating period. If by nine dates, he’s no different than he was at Date 3, that’s a big sign right there that he’s not looking for anything serious.
There are men out there who do want to commit, but the only way we can find to them is to get the other guys out of the way as soon as we figure out the “relationship” is a dead end.
Zaq 47
So many women prepared to wait forever rather than miss out on ‘chemistry’ – SAD
Fiona 48
Evan@43 – at this stage I will happily at least try whatever might actually work. I have just met the cutest English guy in the city at my French language meetup group (I would say he drop dead gorgeous English speak – not sure where that fits on the US number rating scale) who was very keen to see me again which would be fine if he weren’t 8 years younger so next please. I don’t need to find drop dead gorgeous ( as I don’t think I am) but nor do I want an obese guy with serious dental issues.
Elizabeth@44 – my pressure is all about the kids thing but one of my closest American friends got married for the second time at 44 to a Spanish architect who is the spitting image of Antonio Banderas. They had been together since she was 39, she couldn’t have kids and he chose to marry her instead of finding someone else and having kids so love can happen at any age although sadly children cannot.
Happyperson@45 – Thanks. You are right. If it comes to it, I’ll cope somehow.
Karl R 49
Fiona said: (#48)
“at this stage I will happily at least try whatever might actually work.”
Whatever might actually work … except dating the cute guy who was keen to see you again.
You can’t just say you’ll try whatever might work. You actually have to try whatever might work.
Fiona said: (#48)
“my pressure is all about the kids thing”
Elizabeth said: (#44)
“And as for children, that window of opportunity has closed up.”
My sister adopted her first at the age of 41 and her second at the age of 44.
Elizabeth asked: (#44)
“I am 44 yr olds…and single. What man will want to date or get serious with a woman my age?”
I find your question absurd. My fiancée was older than you when we first met. So were several other women I dated.
Elizabeth asked: (#44)
“why the stigma with on-line dating?”
What stigma? The stigma faded away years ago.
Zaq said: (#47)
“So many women prepared to wait forever rather than miss out on ‘chemistry’ – SAD”
It’s a valid choice. As long as they accept the potential consequences of that choice, I have no problem with it.
It only bothers me when they don’t accept the potential consequences, then complain incessantly about never finding anyone.
Tom 50
@Zaq
I actually fully appreciate the frustration these women feel. Could you date a woman that you weren’t really attracted to? I certainly couldn’t.
@Fiona,
Evan is so right; your positive posts are so much more endearing than when the negativity sneaks in.
Ruby 51
Elizabeth #44
“I have had men sit across from me, and say “Ok, what’s wrong with you, why are you single”?! You know…perhaps you just won the winning ticket! Why does a woman have to have any issues because she is merely “single”?”
If these men are single, what is “wrong” with them? If they are divorced, why aren’t they still married?
Online dating has become so common-place, especially among older singles, that I don’t see any stigma attached to it anymore.
“I am 44 yr olds…and single. What man will want to date or get serious with a woman my age?”
I’m in my early fifties, and recently started dating a wonderful man around my age. Neither of us has ever been married, and we are both pretty well-adjusted. We both want a serious relationship. I admit that it’s taken me a long time to find him, but if he stays as great as he seems to be, it will be worth the wait.
I also disagree with the notion that you have to date people you are not physically attracted to. My guy is quite attractive!
Selena 52
Zaq #47
“So many women prepared to wait forever rather than miss out on ‘chemistry’ – SAD”
The word ‘chemistry’ is used on this blog as a synonym for sexual attraction. Initial sexual attraction.
To me, chemistry is personality compatibility. That “click” you feel when you’ve been talking a lot, that hard-to-define something you feel towards some people, and not others. It’s that sense you “get” each other. And that comes with spending time together, not just looking at each other for 5-15 min. Which is why *I* think if one finds someone likeable, it’s in their best interest to be willing to get to know that person a bit more even if the initial sexual attraction isn’t very high. Chemistry develops. So can sexual attraction.
But there needs to be some small spark to fan. If a woman doesn’t want to kiss, or even hold hands with the man she has been spending time with…well, sometimes if it’s not there, it’s never going to be there.
I believe women who decide to forgo sexual attraction, and especially chemistry as I define it, just to be married end up having the sadder lives. The real deal is being able to distinguish between infatuation and chemistry. That can be a process.
Margaret 53
@ Ruby #51: I am in my early 50s, too, and want to find a man around my own age that I am attracted to. You give me hope!
@ Selens # 52, you are right on!
Mia 54
Elizabeth – On one hand it’s easy to wonder why one is single and strive to make positive changes about their approach. On the other, it’s clearly not a fair system based on merit. I know four fat girls (who also have those loudmouthed, annoying, grating personalities) who are engaged to decent men who aren’t fat.
I have a very ugly friend who is about as unfeminine as a woman can be, who is fun but has one of those loudmouthed grating personalities that often turn people off, and she got married at a pretty young age to a decent guy. I have a friend who was a 22 year old virgin with a boring personality and abolutely no breasts – just straight as a board – who found some guy and got married pretty young too. And just look around at the majority women who are married – overweight, nagging, dull. Men don’t want thin, pretty, independent, easygoing women – myself and my friends who are like that are always single, and the women who are dogs, materialistic and nagging are happilly married and don’t go through half the pain we are going through. So I roll my eyes sometimes when people talk about something being wrong with someone single – even though I’ll admit I second guess myself a lot, I stop secondguessing, briefly, when I stop to look around at just how many losers find love.
Zaq 55
@Tom
“I actually fully appreciate the frustration these women feel. Could you date a woman that you weren’t really attracted to? I certainly couldn’t”
No of course. The distinction here is that you are a MAN. Evan speaks of letting go of some requirements and find someone that you still have chemistry with.
This makes no sense at all for most men, who as Mia just pointed out, WILL set the bar pretty low on physical attractiveness.
But with women, attraction is not just about physical appearance. It also depends on a males status, income, intelligence, height, charisma etc etc.
If you wait for someone to hit the sweet spot of all these factors, you will probably be waiting forever.
Compromise on some of the factors will increase your odds.
Fiona has set the bar high, and appears unwilling to lower it – convinced that she can still get the high value mate, but may be not in time to have a child.
However women do not seem to factor in that their value to the opposite sex just keeps falling with age.
To paraphrase a female journalist on turning 40. ” Its impossible to find the guy who ticks all the boxes. I finally looked for that guy who had been pursuing me relentlessly for years. He had just got married to a much younger woman.”
Fiona 56
Karl@49 Of course I want to date the cute 29 year old. Who wouldn’t? It’s flattering- I suspect however that it would be a very high risk choice at this stage. As for adoption, I admire people who do it but I am afraid I am not that selfless.
Mia@49 – other people are married and some of them aren’t that attractive. So what? It seems to me to a huge leap from making that observation to concluding that men do not like thin, pretty, independent, easygoing women…it suggests that the only women that get married are fat, ugly, needy with psychological disorders… I know plenty of married women and not one like that! Stop comparing yourself to married people. It’s not going to help you.
kenley 57
How dare fat and ugly women get married. Don’t they know only pretty, thin women deserve love and marriage? I guess they didn’t get the memo.
Mia perhaps you haven’t worked on yourself as much as you say you have. You seem to have a lot of disdain for people YOU have decided are not worthy of love and marriage — fat women, ugly women, boring women. You come across as superior, angry, bitter, and not so nice. Perhaps the men you date are picking up on that vibe. What those women have isn’t blocking you from getting what you want, so why are you even focused on them? Moreover, the idea that you can’t find a man because you are pretty, thin and nice is a little hard to believe.
Ruby 58
Mia #54
I’m finding your post quite mean-spirited and insulting. I don’t find a big difference in how attractive my married friends are versus my single ones. I also don’t describe my “friends” as “very ugly,” “boring,” “no breasts” (who cares?), “grating” or “losers,” or begrudge them their happy marriages.
It’s possible that your less-attractive friends hooked up with the first decent guy they found because they were concerned that they would be less competitive in the dating world than more attractive women…or maybe, despite their physical flaws, they understand what it means to be a good friend, and their boyfriends appreciated that.
As mentioned, dating is not a meritocracy, but I do think that kindness and positivity are helpful qualities to cultivate if you’re looking for a good man. They’re also good qualities to cultivate if you want to have friends in general.
P 59
Argh. I say it again…ARGH. This type of topic has come up so many times on this blog and it always has the same result: Rational people saying one thing and the religious saying another. In this case, the religion is “chemistry.”
I won’t muddy the waters by talking about some of the arguments being put forth that women look at things like status, money, intelligence, and so forth as the majority of the arguments here have a slant towards that “chemistry” people so often refer to which is basically biological mating instincts. The “other factors” are generally a tag-along, with the “chemistry” component being “required” by many to initiate a relationship, and the other factors being secondary selectors. I’m just going to talk about that first “chemistry” component. The one that the media portrays as “love” and that our society has placed forth as the ultimate goal to find in everlasting form (along with other things that are romanticized in sexual form that “go along” with this).
That irresistable urge…that desire to be with that person in every aspect. You can’t get close enough…if you could you would crawl inside them. This person is so wonderful! He can do no wrong or if he does its just an odd fluke and he certainly didn’t mean it. I can’t keep my hands off him. I want to have his children! So on, and so forth. I just KNOW he’s the one for me and we will be happy and fulfilled forever. This is amazing!
Its also the biggest practical joke ever played on human beings. You’re on drugs…literally. And wow, you’d do anything to keep this feeling. The only problem is…you won’t. This literally is a drug-induced effect which evolved for one singular purpose: To overcome any averson towards a person and drive you to conceive a child. That’s it…there’s no other purpose to it. Even more amusing is the fact that this urge evolved in such a way that it goes away after a period of time…that period of time averaging as just long enough to conceive, have a child and begin the rearing process. Then, you might feel something towards this person, but not the same “chemistry” as your brain has become used to the stimulus…and when someone else creates a new stimulus (different scent, visual cues, and so forth) the effect starts over…with that DIFFERENT person. This is how we ended up being genetically diverse enough as a species to survive as long as we have.
Here’s what people have a really hard time understanding: That instinct evolved at a time when our brains were more primitive. Our intellectual and emotional states were of a much lesser state than they are now. As these primitive beings, we didn’t think far into the future and were reacting more like animals would. This instinct DOES NOT CARE about YOU as an intelligent, emotional creature. It doesn’t care about your emotional well-being. It doesn’t care about having someone around supportively for a lifetime. It doesn’t care at all about any of that and nor does it maintain even a bit of consideration about it. All it cares about is the SPECIES and driving you to have offspring in a way conducive to the survival of the species in a primitive environment. That’s it. In addition, it DOES NOT drive you to mate with someone for life. That would be unbeneficial to the way our species operates on a biological level. This instinct wants you to have children…and to mix biological material as much as possible. This goes for women as well although at a slower rate than with men by necessity.
Because of its primitive basis, this “chemistry” instinct reacts only to cues that made perfect sense in primitive times. Immunological cues derived from scent. Certain appearances (such as symmetry) which were indicators of genetic health, and so on. It does NOT account for a changing world where such things mean less than they used to, or mean different things. It does NOT consider your long-term happiness, contentness, or emotions. Why? Because it didn’t evolve directly connected to a creature with higher cognitive abilities or deeper psychological ability. Those came later and ended up ON TOP of this structure.
Human beings DID figure this out over time…which is why you see a great deal of literature from ages past warning of the danger in trusting this instinct for anything other than sex. Somewhere along the way, in recent times, we decided that this instinct was at the core of our relationship formation, even though it in and of itself is self-defeating in this purpose.
As intelligent, emotional creatures (intertwined), somewhere along the way we need to decide what we want in life. If you’re someone who desires a stable partnership in life, then utilizing “chemistry” as a selecting mechanism for this quest is basically playing a losing game. You’re making your selection based upon sex…and that’s basically it. There’s no way around that. And, you’re making your selection based upon something that will fail you as it fades away.
Someone above mentioned that they cannot initiate a relationship unless they had that “chemistry” or “spark.” Okay…then I ask you what you do when that “chemistry” or “spark” fades? You can’t kiss someone or sleep with someone unless you feel that…so when it fades, eventually you’re in the same situation as you are with someone who you never had with initially. Somehow things will be different then? Wait…you mean, when that does fade you can replace it with desire derived from your higher cognitive ability and emotions when its not driven by a dopamine cascade in your brain? You can? If so…why could you not do that with someone once you got to know them and they fit you on the same emotional and mental levels without that initial drug high? I know…I know…its “just different.” But you won’t be able to tell me why. I’ll tell you…its because you made a choice. You DECIDED somewhere along the line to put chemistry in the driver’s seat instead of your un-drug-addled mind. Or maybe you’re one of those people who thinks that “chemistry” WILL last forever…even though biologically (if you’re normal) it evolved NOT to do that. I know…you’re “special” and with the “right person” this will happen to YOU.
Maybe you simply believe that as the “chemistry” fades you’ll develop something else with this person on a more emotional/mental and rational level. Well…it doesn’t seem to work that way very often in this society now does it? Divorce rates are through the roof and I’m sorry, everyone is not an abuser or horrible person. People come through my office door ALL THE TIME talking about how they just “fell out of love.” When looked at on a deeper level…there was never any love involved there at all. It was simply that as the “chemistry” faded they began to see the other person normally and rationally. This person is no longer perfect for them…plus, they put all their faith in “chemistry” and now…now they “lost” something so therefore something is terribly wrong with this relationship. Answer this: Is it better to have something and lose it or to never have it at all but have something else in its place? It seems to be, based on my research, people react MUCH more negatively to something that they had that “goes away” than they do to something they didn’t have.
Its just disappointing to see so many people who love having choice and determinism in their lives using THAT as a rallying cry for GIVING UP rational choice in their lives and utilizing primitive instincts to make choices for life, when those instincts are completely unsuited for the job in modern life.
Someone above also mentioned that being with someone without “chemistry” is like being with a roommate. I’ll assume this means a roommate that you’re also close friends with for the sake of not completely dehumanizing anyone on the planet you don’t have chemistry with. Hmm…hey, guess what? You are going to spend 99% of your time with ANYONE, chemistry or not, being their friend and roommate. That attitude I heard is just a PRIME indicator of relationship failure. That expectation of magic that somehow transcends things.
Yet another person said something about if love (REAL love) was a choice we could love anyone. Hey…what is wrong with that??? I actually think that’s one of our strongest traits…that we CAN love anyone if we choose to. Our minds are the strongest thing we have going for us. The reason people don’t love just anyone is that on some level, based on their psychology, they choose NOT to.
So many people do not want responsibility for their own lives…they just want to rely on something that gives them no choice in their eyes, and yet is systematically programmed to fail them. Hmm…this appears to be a really good definition of being irrational or insane. It never ceases to amaze me how people actually act surprised at their outcomes when doing this…even though its done it to them REPEATEDLY. Even though there are endless examples of it from everyone around them.
I honestly wish people would wake up and realize that the biggest gift they have to give and to receive is that choice of love. That conscious decision to stick with someone, not because you are drugged into it, but because you MADE that choice to stand by someone for REAL reasons. Not because of simple chemically induced feelings that have no real basis. That isn’t SETTLING by any long shot. SETTLING to me is the whole concept of giving up your rational, REAL emotional and intellectual being and wandering through life looking for a drug high instead of REAL emotional connections with people who care about you (and you, them) for more than just the high you give them. That’s what it means to ACTUALLY like someone on a higher level.
Helen 60
kenley: “How dare fat and ugly women get married. Don’t they know only pretty, thin women deserve love and marriage? I guess they didn’t get the memo.”
As a married woman, I give you high fives.
Rock on.
Seriously, you and Fiona are right. Mia’s attitude in #54 to us “dogs” and “losers” is, um, pretty amazing. I would suggest to Mia: the only person who loses by making constant comparisons is yourself. It causes you distress, and resentment does reveal itself and harm relationships no matter how hard you may try to hide it. So you need to let go of that uber-judgmental attitude for your own sake. Men simply do not like to hear women cat about other women.
Tom’s comment in #50 was absolutely right – and Fiona wasn’t even criticizing other women. Negativity is not endearing, and catty negativity is a complete turnoff.
Evan Marc Katz 61
What P said in #59! Can I get an amen?
Selena 62
You slogged through the whole rant?
Helen 63
Evan: I wish I could give an amen, but cannot in this case, although P’s comments are always intelligent and thought-provoking, and although hub and I could be poster-children for the points she (he?) raises.
The reason I can’t give an amen is that, today, people enter into relationships for very different reasons than those that drove our ancestors to enter relationships. There is no reason to presuppose that our needs and values are the same as theirs. Historically, mating with one other person or forming a clan has largely been driven by the fact that this is a more sustainable method of raising children: whether to boost the overall population in a new settlement, to marry off for political ties, or to carry on the family farm/business.
Today, particularly in the western world, we no longer have the same needs. The global population stands at over 7 billion. There is far less need for humans as a species to procreate to prevent extinction, even locally. Marriage for political unities is becoming far less common; even Wils married the gorgeous commoner Kate. Far fewer children are staying in the same line of trade as their parents, and are moving ever farther from home.
Given these demographic changes, it makes perfect sense that reasons for entering (and exiting) relationships changes as well. If people don’t want children (there are several posters here who fit that), why should they not choose a mate based on compatibility, which partly has to do with physical, mental, or emotional chemistry? We have the luxury to do that today. That is what our ancestors have afforded us. I don’t think moral labels should be slapped here and there, given that, as a species, this is what we collectively have evolved to at this point in time.
I also don’t believe that every type of chemistry fades with time. In my own relationship, none of those three types have faded; some of them have grown, along with appreciation.
Yes, you can consciously choose to love someone. But it helps to understand that the CONTEXT of doing so is so completely different from what it was just a generation ago, let alone ten generations; and therefore it doesn’t seem right to point the finger and shame anyone for not doing things the old-fashioned way (which hub and I did, but not because we’re morally superior). New types of relationships are being tried; new arrangements. We’re all feeling our way around. It’s quite an interesting time in history.
Ruby 64
I’m not even sure what people mean when they talk about “chemistry” on this site anymore, and I certainly don’t believe that “we CAN love anyone if we choose to.” I don’t think there would be much need for this blog, or EMK’s services, if that were true.
If you’re talking about love – or lust – at first sight, then no, you don’t need that. Do you need to feel some physical attraction and connection to begin a romantic relationship? Yes, I think you do. Do those things need to be mutual? Yes. I’d also argue that the feeling of chemistry and connection that you have with a partner is what enables you to stay together through tough times over the long haul. But the chemistry and connection is something that you continue to build upon over the course of a relationship. It isn’t all there, all at once, from the beginning, nor does it need to be.
Selena 65
Giving Helen an Amen!
Teresa 66
Of course you need more than chemistry if you want your marriage to last 30-40 years have a family etc.. I am not looking to get married again so chemistry to important to me.
I didn’t have that chemistry with my ex husband but he had other traits that I felt would compensate for that lack but alas the marriage ended anyway.
Serena27 67
Amen! I second that! P #59 is so articulate, and knowledgeable!
I don’t want to say too much here, b/c I’m going to send a proper thank you to Evan later, but I found a man with whom the compatibility is through the roof and I can’t describe how fantastic it feels! I feel so comfortable and safe and peaceful with him which causes such joy to bubble up inside me, it’s an amazing combination of feelings! I’ve let him pursue me, and I’ve just been open and warm and receptive and reciprocated back to him. The only ‘hard’ part is matching his level b/c I’m not used to being treated so well. I am blown away by his “character, integrity, kindness, devotion, and selflessness.” I really enjoy the labour of loving him, and I will only continue to put in the work to grow this amazing relationship.
lld 68
I believe that the key to a lasting relationship IS choosing to love that person every day. It’s not always easy to deal with the day to day but I know in the end… I have a great guy and that whatever the problem is we will work it out and it will pass.
Helen 69
Thanks, Selena #65.
Partly it was your post #52 that made me rethink this whole notion of chemistry.
Zaq: chemistry isn’t such a bad thing, and it isn’t limited to physique. Personally I’ve felt chemistry for all types of people: male, female, fat, thin, tall, short, conventionally attractive or not, educated or not, different races and ages. It’s not as rare as you may think. And it’s not limited to sexual purposes; chemistry can also exist between friends, coworkers, even commenters on the same blog. There are many here with whom I’d enjoy having coffee and conversations.
Fusee 70
@P #59: Thank you for your brilliant and eloquent comment. Was well worth its length. 100% in agreement. Evan, you can take this as my “amen”.
Reading the comments on this blog and not just this post makes me wonder about the possiblity that some people might be completely unable to let go (hormonally and emotionally) of that “immediate chemistry requirement” for giving someone a chance and allow a relationship to develop. It could be that some people will never be able to have a solid and happy long-term relationship because of the incompatibility between their requirement for immediate chemistry in the short-term and the sobering necessity of being able continue without chemistry for a successful long-term relationship.
We take long-term relationships as something we deserve and/or can naturally do. I think that growing a solid and happy long-term relationship is an art that needs some initial talent and then solid methods and dedicated work. Like every other art, it’s not for everyone because of lack of talent or lack of perseverance to learn, practice, and stay committed through lack of inspiration and competing activities. I would propose that being naturally (or after some inner work) able to get to know someone without needing to feel much “initial chemistry” is one of the relationship “talents” that allow some people to be more successful than others from the very beginning of the process.
P 71
Helen, in some ways you and I are violently agreeing but perhaps coming at things from a different perspective.
First, I’m using the term “chemistry” in relation to that “high” people receive when their biological mating instinct kicks in. Infatuation. There’s too much confusion about terminology. Lust and love are often used interchangeably. “Chemistry” is modified as “physical, mental, and/or emotional” when in reality most people are referring to that high when they talk about chemistry. That same high that can make you believe you have other compatibility when in fact, you don’t. Emotional and mental “chemistry” is a misnomer…that’s actually better described as compatibility and is a psychological response rather than a physiological one.
When I write about chemistry as being used as part of a selection process, I’m referring to that selection process in the desire to find a life-long partner and how that in effect is a very flawed mechanism. Of course people had different reasons for entering into relationships long ago. In fact, “life partners” or marriages have only actually been around for the past 4000 years or so. Before then, humans existed in loose polygamous groups…they did NOT mate with a single individual for life. The life-partner concept first came about as a stable arrangement for support. Resources as well as political and religious influences had large influences on this as time went on. There’s no denying that.
But here’s a reality that few want to think about: That still exists today. Perhaps for different resources and influences, but it still exists. People attempt to form bonds like this because, let’s face it, life is different now but in many ways it isn’t easier. Resource pooling, physical help with life’s chores, and emotional support are all great driving forces behind selecting a partner in life.
Human beings, by instinct, do NOT mate for life. When we do, its by CHOICE and for a variety of supporting mechanisms. The issue I see is that through our romanticism of the sexual instinct, we make that choice based on an extremely poor determinant–physical “chemistry.”
You mentioned that you don’t believe “all forms” of chemistry fade. The only form of chemistry being referred to here is that driven by biological concerns, which does affect us all whether we like it or not. The other forms you refer to such as emotional and mental are not “chemistry” per se, but psychological manifestations. The biological “chemistry” fades for all but a very, very tiny and select group of people who are evolutionarily “broken” so to speak. No, you probably aren’t one of them, but yes, they exist. And no, you can’t become one of them…its a genetic abnormality and such people are often prone to other forms of addictive behaviors as the root of their ability to feel that “chemistry” always has to do with an abnormality of their dopaminergic pathways and feedback system.
The point I was trying to make is that for almost everyone, a point is reached in any relationship where they will not, absolutely will not feel that biological “chemistry” any longer. They will reach the point where they have to transition–where they have to start using their higher brain function–their psychology to drive their desire to be in the relationship. And what people refuse to give credit to and many refuse to even realize is just how powerful THAT is. MUCH more powerful than that “chemistry” people like to refer to. Our higher brain can, and does override our instinctual self…that’s the wonder of being human, rather than being an animal. We can, and do drive attraction based upon our psychological makeup. If you value emotional and mental compatibility above all else, it CAN an does create an environment where this can drive a physical reaction. Why do you think people are capable of having strange sexual fetishes and desires which have nothing to do with biological sex? Because their psychology drives this. This is an extreme example, but its along the same lines.
My issue was with the repeated messages saying that this biological chemistry is an absolute requirement to starting a relationship with someone for it to work. That’s a CHOICE, and I would hazard to say its poor one to make. If you are going to lose this, which you certainly will, why is it a prerequisite? If it serves to cloud judgement (which it certainly does), why would you use it as a prerequisite to choosing a life partner–assuredly a HUGE investment in life and worthy of a better process and clear thinking.
Fiona 72
P@54 – On another planet where people have no feelings, yep we can all have sex with people we find repulsive and have no issue with it. Back on planet earth however it is insufferable which is why the Victorians told women to “Lie Back and Think of England” because they generally had no choice of husband and hated it. Sexual compatibility is surely as important in the beginning of a relationship as any other kind of compatibility. If it isn’t there, it is a non-starter.
I have actually never seen Evan ever suggest that you should ignore the fact you find someone downright unattractive. I understand his point as being that attraction is fine just so long as you don’t let it blind you into accepting other traits that you wouldn’t otherwise accept with which I agree wholeheartedly.
Anonymous 73
For the most part, I agree with P #59 (though I also agree with the commenters that say there has to be some level of initial attraction and connection present). Based on #59, I have a question though. If a man tells you he’s had crazy chemistry for you since the day you met, and that, in the past, he’s turned down other women because there was no chemistry… does this mean he’s only going to stick around until his chemistry wears off, and then it’s game over? Should you treat this man as someone who’s put a chemical into his body that will wear off in X months and then he’ll be back to normal, or just assume that he’s a nice guy who’s saying these things because he’s trying to be nice, and won’t bail when chemistry is no longer present?
Fiona 74
P@71 – Where can I sign up for this love relationship? I trust that my partner will be so emotionally and mentally compatible with me that he will be one hundred percent understanding of the fact that we will never consummate that relationship! Actually, I just realised that I don’t need to sign up for that relationship at all because I have plenty of friends and family already that I love platonically and I can always just get some sperm from a sperm bank. Although you make some good points about not being blinded by chemistry with which I agree, to suggest we just a total lack of physical attraction isn’t very realistic.
Fiona 75
P@71 – Where can I sign up for this love relationship? I trust that my partner will be so emotionally and mentally compatible with me that he will be one hundred percent understanding of the fact that we will never consummate that relationship! Actually, I just realised that I don’t need to sign up for that relationship at all because I have plenty of friends and family already that I love platonically and I can always just get some sperm from a sperm bank. Although you make some good points about not being blinded by chemistry with which I agree, to suggest we just ignore a total lack of physical attraction isn’t very realistic.
susan 76
chemistry might be a great starting point but I’m with Anon above. unfortunately chemistry means they want to sleep with you, not have a relationship. The trick is finding both, which so far has eluded me.
Selena 77
“My issue was with the repeated messages saying that this biological chemistry is an absolute requirement to starting a relationship with someone for it to work. That’s a CHOICE, and I would hazard to say its poor one to make.” -P
Without some sexual attraction initially, people are less likely to want to spend the time together necessary to establish mental and emotional compatibility. The components that go into making a successful relationship.
Also, people who find themselves in sexually incompatible relationships are often miserable since many humans connect sexual intimacy with emotional and mental intimacy, rather than view it as a reproductive mechanism.
*I* would hazard to say attempting a lifelong partnership with someone for whom you have little to no sexual interest is a very poor choice to make.
Fusee 78
Fiona #72, no one said you should sleep with someone you are not attracted to. However it is unreasonable to have the prerequisite of feeling attracted to a random stranger in order to accept a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or even 5th date, unless you really are addicted to instant physical chemistry.
Immediate attraction can happen, but it does not need to be there right away for a good relationship to develop down the line. P is right when he says: “Our higher brain can, and does override our instinctual self…that’s the wonder of being human, rather than being an animal. We can, and do drive attraction based upon our psychological makeup. If you value emotional and mental compatibility above all else, it CAN an does create an environment where this can drive a physical reaction.”
When you meet a random stranger for a 1st date, you may or may not experience instant physical chemistry. If it’s there, great, but you will still need to assess the real compatibility between the two of you. If it’s not there, instead of writing the person off, it might still be worth it to investigate the other compatibilities if you have strong indications that something more is there (from an online profile for example). The problem is that you will need several dates and real conversations (not just movies, mini-golf, and random chit-chats) in order to discover emotional, intellectual, and spiritual compatibility. It will require asking real questions and listening carefully. It will also require gently asking the person to hold off on physical contact even if for them the physical attraction is already there (which is the case for most men). Evan said that if I’m not kissing he does not pursue, and this is obviously his prerogative, but I’m not kissing if I do not know you. And I do not know you after two dates. It takes a little patience.
If genuine deeper compatiblity is uncovered, physical/sexual attraction can certainly develop from there. Now I’m not suggesting to go out with someone who is really far off your physical preferences, but there again, the narrower your range is, the shrinker your dating pool is. Personally my only need is the man not to be overweight. I’d give a chance to any ethnicity, height, amount of hair, income, etc etc.
Sadly people do not want to give it time. Others are not able or willing to overcome their need for instant physical attraction, or have too narrow physical preferences.
Karl R 79
Fiona said: (#72)
“On another planet where people have no feelings, yep we can all have sex with people we find repulsive and have no issue with it. Back on planet earth however it is insufferable”
Insisting on some sexual attraction is the norm. Even the men that Mia referred to (#54) almost certainly were attracted to their girlfriends/wives.
What percentage of men do you find sufficiently physically attractive for sex?
In my circles (work, church, dancing, etc.), I’d guess about 60% of the women (within 10 years of my age) are sufficiently physically attractive for me. Perhaps more. I know some men (and a couple women) who find about 80% to 100% sufficiently physically attractive.
I could probably expand that percentage (as P indicated), but I’m usually not motivated to do so past about the 60% to 70% point.
I rule most women out for non-physical reasons (like whether we get along).
I get the impression that you’re ruling out more than 40% of men based on physical attractiveness. If you’re ruling out 80% or more, I think you’re seriously cramping your dating life with your pickiness.
Fiona said: (#16)
“what am I supposed to do when he tries to kiss me? Just put up with it and grin and bear it even though I really don’t want to and am fighting the gag reflex?”
Furthermore, I’d say that only 1% or 2% of women (in my circles) are so repulsive that I’d need to worry about a gag reflex during a kiss. And it sounds to me like this is a commonplace occurance for you on your dates.
Why do you find so many people that repulsive?
Anonymous asked: (#73)
“If a man tells you he’s had crazy chemistry for you since the day you met, and that, in the past, he’s turned down other women because there was no chemistry… does this mean he’s only going to stick around until his chemistry wears off, and then it’s game over?”
It certainly could happen that way, but there are other possible outcomes.
How is the compatability between the two of you? The relationship certainly won’t last if the compatability isn’t there.
If I was in your position, I’d pursue the relationship, but wait to see what happened when the infatuation wore off. I would avoid rushing into marriage, because I would want to see what the relationship was like after the infatuation faded.
Zaq 80
From women’s responses, I just get the impression that chemistry is not just a physical thing, and the other factors mentioned are playing their part.
The fact that women set the bar so high, virtually guarantees that they will be forced to settle, and the comments above reflect their dissatisfaction with that.
Men settle too, but they have more options.
As the saying goes “Women marry men and hope that they will change. Men marry women and hope they NEVER change”
Paragon 81
Clearly humans have not evolved to ignore their shortterm mating instincts(in privileging physical attraction), so
why is it that longterm mating concerns receive less consideration?
I think the answer is because there is always constant pressure against developmental incompetence – which thus ‘fixes’ shortterm mating instincts throughout evolutionary time.
And since these two competing, time-variant, evolutionary strategies are coevolitionary, long-term mating prevails only with sufficent ecological pressures to temper those shortterm instincts(manifesting through bi-parental advantage – where stable parental-pair bonds accord a competitive advantage to offspring success).
This explains the declining success(lagged by the rate of information efficiency) of longterm mating, following from a progessive relaxation of ecological pressures to support its evolutionary advantage(given sufficiently prosperous, modern human societies).
For example, in the past, individual welfare was dependent on more localised support systems that strictly ensured reciprocity resulting in more stable, and productive mate-pairings – where each party was rewarded for their
contributions, and thus duly motivated to perservere.
Males received sexual access to females, and females received some assurance of protection, and provision, for both themselves, and their offspring – and this model soon came to soundly outcompete, and displace, the polygamous antecedents.
Given insufficient, ‘floating’, prosperity, this system was far less tolerant of selfish free-riders(whether in the form of delinquent males, or obstinate females), and thus limited their frequency accordingly, breeding pragmatic expectations.
Of course, since contemporary developed human populations are no longer subject to the same pressures as in the past, it
should come as no surprise that expectations have likewise changed.
Thus, I hear alot of the women in this thread protesting that they can’t fall in love *without* this elusive chemistry.
But (as others have noted)there are different kinds of chemistry – short acting(lightning strikes, gone in 60 seconds, when the relationship fails – which most women in this thread can attest to), or long acting(the kind that takes, months, if not years to evolve and appreciate).
And the first one *is*(no matter how much you might not want to believe), poorly correlated with stable relationships(an assumption that is supported by any non-trivial understanding of sexual evolution).
Unfair, perhaps, but no amount of incredulity, or wishful thinking is going to amend it.
The long acting chemistry, on the other hand, is never going to be manifestly evident, because it takes *time* to evolve –
time that can only be accorded by a conscious decision to privilege alternate concerns beyond sexual(ie. short-acting)
chemistry.
I think that if someone has an established history of falling into the short acting ‘chemistry-trap’, this is speaking to
some (justifiably) low confidence of positive outcomes – given prevailing tendencies.
The problem is one of an established history of prior unsuccessful outcomes, which suggests an alternate strategy, presupposing an alternate outcome.
In attempting to resolve this problem, merely appealing to blind probability is not strategic.
Merely being more critical or savvy in your observations of *others* is *not* strategic.
Choice-sets that significantly *deviate from prior, unsuccessful choices*, on the other hand, *are* strategic.
This can be a bitter pill to swallow, no matter how much we try to sugar coat it.
It is well understood in evolutionary game-theoretic terms, as Pavlov(win-stay, lose-shift), and has been experimentally
validated.
So, we need to ask ourselves, what is more important, getting our next shortterm *fix*, or improving our longterm prospects?
True – the human brain is the most plastic organ in the human body – we *can* change the way we think, and we can remap our brain through new experiences, given that we can break symmetry in setting the initial condition that predisposes those experiences.
But, lacking the same intensity of external forces that once mediated the compromises individuals were compelled to make(with respect to their mating choices) in the distant past, I fear it is perhaps not realistic that – for the more obstinate cases – this compulsion should follow from an a priori manifestation of free-will, per se.
Thus, I suspect the most such disinclined individuals can do is
reconcile the very REAL conflict that exists between shortterm and longterm mating, and thus amend their expectations accordingly.
Fiona 82
Fusee@78 – I it is I think perfectly reasonable not to accept a 3rd date with someone that I have zero attraction for. Why? Because by then I am having to battle off physical advances and I am not comfortable with that. I also run the risk of being accused of teasing men or leading them on unfairly so I do the only sensible thing and get out.
I once did have a one year relationship with a man that I liked that I wasn’t physically attracted to. It did not improve so I know from experience that it is a bad idea and I would any woman even contemplating this that it is a recipe for disaster and certainly not for happiness. I left that relationship because frankly the physical side was sheer hell for me due to my whole body reviling him and I am not going there again. I don’t need a man in my life that much.
Karl@79 I am. I am physically attracted to a very low percentage of men that I meet – between 1 to 20 percent depending on the day and where I go. I think you’ll find for most females of the species who are not programmed to sleep with everyone they encounter of the opposite sex, this is quite normal. My Mum said that she was the same, my sister is the same, almost every single woman that I meet is the same…on the bright side I do also seem to be hard wired to be faithful.
Fiona 83
Oh and Karl a lot of men in this country have dreadful dental hygiene which doesn’t help
Zaq 84
I agree with P pretty much:
‘ through our romanticism of the sexual instinct, we make that choice based on an extremely poor determinant–physical “chemistry.” ‘
If those ‘love drug’ chasers can at least admit that the above statement is true, that would be a good starting point.
Many years ago I had this ‘feeling’. It was so intense, it was off the scale!. It made me physically sick. I was a gibbering wreck. And this with someone who barely reciprocated my love.
What a rush.
I consider it a once in a lifetime event. I could wax lyrical on its effects. Rather like going from seeing the world in monotone grey, mono sound to full vivid color and dolby digital surround.
Unfortunately I barely survived the dopamine crash that inevitably followed. I never want to be that out of control again.
It is possible to love someone without these feelings, but yes, you do feel short changed not to have them a little.
One day someone is going to develop a pill to reproduce these feelings, because it really is just chemical. There is someone who wants to, and CAN enrich your life now. Wouldn’t you rather take the pill when you are with them ?
Selena 85
@Fiona #82
You bring up a good point: if one is not very sexually attracted to someone they meet – how much time should they spend with that person to see what may develop?
There are men who are resentful of women who accept dates with them knowing they are not fully attracted.
There are men who are resentful women won’t give them more of a chance than just one or two dates.
There are men who feel they were used for attention and entertainment if a woman goes out with them a few times before discerning they are not a match.
There are men who do not want to take things slowly for fear of being put permanently in the “friend zone”.
There are men who expect sexual expression within the first few dates and if it doesn’t happen, they move on. Thus not allowing anything to “grow”.
Although I am a believer in the possibility of chemistry developing as people get to know one another, it is not a simple thing to navigate. Rather depends on who you are dealing with.
Mia 86
To the men who criticize women for being physically attracted to a far lower percentage of the opposite sex than men are – I don’t think that’s a fair point.
Men may be physically attracted to far more women, BUT they also appear to be interested in a very tiny number of women for an actual relationship. I mean, a lot of men I know may meet a woman they’re really wowed by once every few years, if that; sometimes it’s only a couple in a lifetime.
This seems unreasonably and outrageously picky to me, as I’ve described here before; if I’m really being emotionally open and out there, I can meet at least several men a year that I could see myself enjoying a relationship with. So women ARE physically attracted to a small percentage of men at first glance, but often when we’re physically attracted it’s because we like them and could be in a relationship with them, which men don’t feel when for the 60-80 percent of women they have attraction for. It’s very rare that even a good looking guy I just met or am on a first date with I’m going to feel physically attracted to – usually my attraction kicks in by the second – fourth date, sometimes after a couple months as friends, and a lot of women are like that. That doesn’t mean women are overly picky, we’re just slower to warm up in that way.
Goldie 87
@ Fiona et al – I feel so pretentious typing this, but you’re creating a false dichotomy. It does NOT have to be all or nothing. There are many viable options between being a “gibbering wreck” (thanks Zaq, good one) with permanent butterflies in the stomach and being physically repulsed by the person to the point where they make you gag.
@Zaq #80 – actually, bringing other factors into play is what allows a woman to set the bar lower on the physical thing. I once dated a guy for several months that looked like my late great-aunt, I kid you not — same facial features, build, hair (what was left of it). The first time he suggested dating, my reaction was along the lines of “Are you on crack? No way!” But because he was smart, funny, and a good friend, I was eventually able to develop that chemistry, and was depressed for quite a while after we had to end it. Pretty sure some of the guys (Karl) work the same way when developing chemistry for a woman. Furthermore, I’ll hazard a guess that the chemistry developed this way is less likely to wear completely off after 18 moths.
Anonymous #73 88
@ Karl #79: the compatibility is awesome (or else I wouldn’t be with him — I didn’t have the chemical high he said he did, but he’s grown on me a lot, because we have a great connection.) He treats me like a queen. To make things easier, neither of us plans on getting married again anytime soon. I guess I have nothing to complain about, except that his occasional comments about chemistry make me feel like I’m sitting on a time bomb. Then again, isn’t everyone
I figure a decent and loyal guy would stick around even after the chemical rush is no longer there… especially if he knows I’ll make it worth his while
If not, oh well, life goes on.
Tom 89
Good point Mia. I’m probably attracted to about 70% of women enough to sleep with, about 10% to call again, about 5% to have as fwb, about 1% to date, about .001% as a girlfriend, and about .0000001% to marry (like Zaq I only ever met one). So who’s pickier?
Helen 90
Tom 89: “So who’s pickier?”
If you’re representative of men, then the answer is obvious: men.
You do realize you put this marriage-able value at 1 in 10 million, right?
Helen 91
Tom, correction: this value is actually 1 in a BILLION women you would marry – I had forgotten to account for the % sign in your previous email.
There’s only about 3.5 billion females in the WORLD, most not of marriage-able age.
Heather 92
@ Mia,
I’m a bit late to the conversation but I understand how it feels. I’m almost 37 and I was ready to give up on dating altogether, when I met my current guy. I’d worked VERY hard on myself, stepped back, let the guy take the lead, took NO nonsense from a guy, was really beginning to believe a guy when he showed me his behavior, etc. And I just wasn’t meeting guys who were ready for commitment, or they’d say they were, go out with me a couple of times, and suddenly they weren’t ready. So I was pretty over all the “thanks but no thanks” feedback. I was working really hard to learn from each experience, but it was also becoming emotionally exhausting, and on top of it, getting news that my Mom has cancer, well that was just too much.
It can feel like a no-win situation sometimes and I totally sympathize with you. And hey, if you need a break from dating for awhile, take it. Lord knows men do that all the time, and nobody judges them or says that they’re “giving up.” I took a short break last summer and really, it was for the best. I’d gotten my feelings hurt over a few guys and was pretty damn angry about it. And it helped me get some perspective, do some more work on me, and just be OK with Heather.
Hang in there, girlfriend. You’ve clearly done the homework, so be proud of yourself for that. That’s all we can do is hold our heads up, know we’re doing our best, and brush off the guys who won’t commit.
Karl R 93
Mia said: (#86)
“I can meet at least several men a year that I could see myself enjoying a relationship with.”
Are all those men who are available and reciprocate your interest?
I went to a three day training/networking event less than a month ago. In three days, I met at least a dozen women that I could see myself enjoying a relationship with. They were bright, funny, nice and enjoyable to converse with.
I’m taken. These aren’t potential dates for me.
But perhaps you can understand why I think “several men a year” is a ridiculously small number.
I find it that easy to find great women. A few of the women on the blog would claim it’s because women are great / men suck. I would say there’s a fundamental difference in how we perceive people in general.
Mia said: (#86)
“Men may be physically attracted to far more women, BUT they also appear to be interested in a very tiny number of women for an actual relationship.”
Let’s assume that I meet a woman who is bright, funny, kind, etc. There’s is a 40% chance (at most) that I would avoid a relationship because of a lack of physical attraction. For Fiona (#82) there is (at least) an 80% chance that she would avoid a relationship.
Then again, Tom (#89) has just demonstrated that excessive pickiness can work against men also.
(Though I’m assuming a bit of hyperbole, unless Tom has actually met 1 billion women who were interested in marrying him.)
Zaq said: (#80)
“The fact that women set the bar so high, virtually guarantees that they will be forced to settle,”
“Men settle too, but they have more options.”
That’s true. Just considering physical appearance, I have three times the options (or 60 times the options) that Fiona does.
Furthermore, I would bet that Fiona and Mia are ruling out men for reasons that I barely consider (like income).
The true irony of this discussion about physical attraction…
I have repeatedly heard women (on this blog) justify their long lists of “must-haves” by claiming:
“Men are picky about physical attractiveness.”
Zaq 94
@Tom @89
Clearly YOU are pickier, but I believe that most men DO want relationships.
Given women’s attraction to a small percentage of men, any man that can say he is spoilt for choice (as you do) must be part of that privileged group. You do not see the same world other men do.
You will I believe make the decision to settle down, not on meeting the ‘right’ woman, but more on reaching the right time – as you suspect already.
Fiona, whilst accepting that she is not “drop dead gorgeous” is still chasing the Tom’s of this world. Her chances are therefore pretty slim.
As Goldie points out, women can reduce the odds by concentrating on the non physical attributes, which are never the less attractive in their own right, and in this way chemistry is nurtured.
Men are able to fall in love at the drop of the hat. If they do not show initial interest, it is unlikely to develop over time.
P 95
This all still keeps coming back to attraction and initial infatuation/chemistry. And I keep seeing the same things here…people assuming ATTRACTION is based upon that initial infatuation/chemistry. It can be…but the reality is in the modern human your psychology, belief systems, and expectations have MUCH more to do with it.
As an example…Fiona’s comment about bad oral hygiene. Hmm. What do people who live in cultures who do not prioritize oral hygiene or have access to it do? Don’t mate and die off? No…that doesn’t seem to be the case. Wait patiently for that one person who has the sparkling whites in the entire area? No…they don’t seem to do that either. Because their expectations of such aren’t there, they aren’t a modifying element of their attraction.
Let’s use a topic that nobody really seems to discuss directly. What do physically “ugly” (and I hate that word) do? According to many who consider themselves attractive, they “suck it up” and live unsatisfying lives either single, or with mates they aren’t truly attracted to. However, unfortunately for this theory, this doesn’t bear out as happening in reality. In fact, they’ve been shown to have longer-lasting and MORE satisfying relationships over the long-term.
Yes, their biological short-term mating instinct is forced to “settle”…but an amazingly interesting thing happens. They end up prioritizing their LONG-TERM relationship desires in their selection process. In this respect, they DO NOT “settle.” And here’s something more interesting: Most do not ever feel that they “settled” because they HAD to accept reality. What became important to them was different…and more in line with the characteristics that define a relationship that lasts for the long term. Another interesting tidbit: Most report very satisfying and lasting sexual lives–because they are driving their attraction towards their partners based upon psychological and emotional cues, instead of attempting to have physiological cues drive their emotional states.
People like this are forced to accept a reality that WE ALL end up accepting eventually. You can be absolutely the most attractive person by societal standards right now, but…that’s only going to decline. If your interest is short-term, by all means use it to your advantage and have fun if you want. But if your interest is long-term, the predictive element of that attractiveness is actually pretty dismal. In addition, you are far more likely to be disillusioned when your partner’s attractiveness fades and less likely to be ABLE to drive attraction based upon your emotional desires.
We live in a society that now emphasizes the short-term over the long-term. As a result, our expectations are set over short-term parameters. The problem is, most people in this state also expect such short-term parameters to remain inviolate over time, when one of the primary parameters (attractiveness) is guaranteed to decline.
Your psychological makeup, and your understanding of it are far more important to long-term mate selection than anyone wants to admit because in this society we do not want to take any responsibility for looking at ourselves. Fiona’s “gag reflex” when she refers to kissing someone she isn’t attracted to is a perfect example. People, by simple biology, don’t respond that way. In fact, the selection process when left only to physical parameters is far less violent than that, as Zaq and others have pointed out. Biologically, people respond not with REVULSION over those they do not have “chemistry” with predominantly, but with INDIFFERENCE. It actually takes a VERY distinct disfigurement for humans to respond with any sort of revulsion. Fiona’s REVULSION to this seemingly large set of individuals indicates she either lives among a group of people who are predominantly disfigured as such (not likely unless she lives in a burn unit) or, her psychological makeup and belief systems are driving that revulsion (in the same way it can drive attraction). It works both ways.
When it comes to long-term mating, your success is going to depend on who you are as a person and your psychology FAR more than it is going to depend upon initial attraction. Nobody wants to hear that, but this has been shown time and time again.
Goldie, above, makes a point about “developing” chemistry with someone after getting to know them. Chemistry didn’t develop…compatibility did. And because her expectations of such didn’t preclude an attraction, one DID in fact develop. And she’s completely right…THAT kind of attraction to another person will stick around as long as both people strive to maintain that attraction AND have the psychological makeup which values maintaining it vs. instant gratification.
Paragon 96
@ 73
You seem to be posing a false dichotomy – you should instead look for indications of longterm potential, and revise your expectations accordingly.
@ Fiona
“I am physically attracted to a very low percentage of men that I meet – between 1 to 20 percent depending on the day and where I go. I think you’ll find for most females of the species who are not programmed to sleep with everyone they encounter of the opposite sex, this is quite normal. My Mum said that she was the same, my sister is the same, almost every single woman that I meet is the same…on the bright side I do also seem to be hard wired to be faithful.”
As Zaq once note: “I wasn’t attracted to him… at first”, is often heard from women with a demonstrated ability to
‘settle’.
What do you suppose makes these women different from yourself, or any hypothetical sample you represent?
But, you do realize the implications of what you are writing, and what this says for your prospects, don’t you?
Namely, if we accept your assumptions(which I think are justified) as representative of some sample under consideration, it renders an insoluble scarcity of male candidates for these women, if a longterm pairing is the goal.
@ Mia
“Men may be physically attracted to far more women, BUT they also appear to be interested in a very tiny number of women for an actual relationship.”
Evan has already covered this topic, in disputing what you seem to be implying about men being more averse to ‘settling down’:
http://www.evanmarckatz.com/blog/more-and-more-men-are-settling-for-ms-good-enough/
Helen 97
Karl R and Zaq: I don’t think you’ve disproven Mia’s point.
We don’t care about who’s more picky in choosing people at the outset. We care about who’s picky when it comes time to actually making a long-term commitment to someone.
Is that women or is that men? If Tom’s comments are representative of how men think, then I’d have to say that the men are pickier in terms of focusing on the relationship that matters to this blog as a whole: the long-term relationship.
So what if men start out with a wider net and women are more choosy at the outset. They may eventually balance each other out in terms of how many are acceptable for LTRs – or, the women may exceed men in acceptance at that point. It’s a process, you know. Not a one-time thing.
Zaq 98
@Helen #97
” If Tom’s comments are representative of how men think …”
THEY AREN’T
There are guys out there who marry the first girl that will have them
Goldie 99
@ Zaq
“As Goldie points out, women can reduce the odds by concentrating on the non physical attributes, which are never the less attractive in their own right, and in this way chemistry is nurtured.
Men are able to fall in love at the drop of the hat. If they do not show initial interest, it is unlikely to develop over time.”
Um, I’m a woman and I used to either fall in love at the drop of a hat, or write the person off. Because it repeatedly didn’t work out, I eventually tried a different approach. If I could do it, so can you. It’s not about the difference between women and men as much as it is about the difference between two different dating strategies — one involving instant gratification in form of chemistry vs the other one, taking it slow and getting to know the person better to see if anything develops.
Karl R 100
Helen said: (#97)
“If Tom’s comments are representative of how men think, then I’d have to say that the men are pickier in terms of focusing on the relationship that matters to this blog as a whole: the long-term relationship.”
As I stated before (#93), Tom’s comments (#89) should be taken as hyperbole. If he’s only interested in dating 0.001% of the women who are interested in him, then the only way he could date is if his last name is Cruise.
And as you pointed out (#91), there aren’t 1 billion available women in the world. Even Tom Cruise has to be less picky than that.
Helen asked: (#97)
“Is that women or is that men?”
From a practical standpoint, it doesn’t matter. If you’re overly-picky, you prevent yourself from getting into a relationship regardless of whether you’re a man or a woman.
I take that back. Indirectly, it does matter.
If most men are too picky, and I’m an exception, then I benefit far more than if all men are less picky like me. (It’s a game theory thing.)
You get the best result by being a less picky member of the most picky sex.
Happy Person 101
Re: relationship math. I never understand it. You have guys saying they slept with all of these women and women saying they didn’t sleep with all of these guys. Seems to me that unless we’re talking about men stepping out with men, that the average number of partners for each gender would be the same, right?
Same with commitment and pickiness. I don’t know how pickiness or its opposite gets communicated. But at the end of the day, commitment involves two people who are picking each other, with neither being pickier than the other.
I’m with P in rejecting the evo psych world view of relationships, where people argue like this about “mate selection.” I’m just not seeing any big dance floor where the women are standing in a display line saying “please please please pick me!” to any guy who walks by; nor do I see any jungle where the guys are killing each other over a presenting female.
But I don’t get out much.
Mia 102
Karl– when I said I meet several men a year I could see myself having a relationship with, I’m talking about the men who pursue me for maybe 5-10 dates and then things fizzle bc they dont want an LTR. The actual number of men I am willing to date is large, but it’s irrelevant b/c we women can only date guys who initially like and pursue us.
And no, I don’t care about income — so what if they make 50k if they’re a teacher, work for a nonprofit , or are a journalist as long as they’re smart and passionate about their career .
As for looks? The last 3 guys I dated were a 10, a 4, and a 7. I wasn’t attracted to any initially but gave them a chance. I was also recently crazy about a bald guy 2 inches shorter who made abt 50k –he wasn’t the commitment type, though.
I still stand by my point that men are absurdly picky when it comes to choosing a ltr – if you dont meet every predetermined requirement it’s over for them. a guy who pursues a woman and is good to her has a decent chance of winning her over.
nathan 103
This debate about which gender is pickier is absurd. Who gives a damn! Not only is there no way to really determine an answer to such a question, but it doesn’t help anyone who is single here find a partner.
Let’s talk instant chemistry, or something like it. First off, when you’re hot for someone right away, it’s lust. End of story. Falling in love at the drop of a hat is really falling in lust. Physical attraction, coupled with an imagined image of what someone is like.
Have to say that every time I have experienced falling in lust, it’s been a fairly quick crash and burn. Just happened to me again recently. We plunged deep quickly, and it was like a dream for about six weeks. And then, I started paying attention like I’m always writing about doing on my blog. And signs of trouble were all over the place. We didn’t even make it another six weeks; that’s how fast it was over.
I think there is a difference between zero attraction, and feeling something, but not really being sure what it is. All of my long term relationships have begun with that “something” which I chose to explore, and which developed into love and attraction over time. I’d like to emphasize the word “choose” here. Because when I think of people who are truly picky, its those who almost always choose to reject quickly, and who are focused on finding whatever negatives are necessary in their minds to justify the rejection.
If we want to talk about gender differences, I would say that from what I have seen, women are more prone to overplaying the importance of instant chemistry. Whereas men are prone to overplaying the importance of physical “hotness.” In the end, both of these are major mistakes when it comes to looking for and developing healthy long term relationships.
Fiona 104
Zaq@94 to be clear I don’t think I’m drop dead gorgeous but I do attract a fair number of men who are. Be careful what you assume.
P, to be clear, I was repulsed by the idea of kissing the one person I described because I just was. I am only actively attracted to about 1 to 20% of men I would guess. That does not mean the other 80% are by definition repulsive. It just means that I am not attracted to them. I am not going to justify this.
I will wait until I find someone compatible emotionally, intellectually and sexually. My compromises are all about age, height, career etc not about any of the important stuff and that includes compatibility on all three levels. If other people are prepared to compromise on that, I wouldn’t advise it but that’s up to them.
Karl R 105
Happy Person said: (#101)
“at the end of the day, commitment involves two people who are picking each other, with neither being pickier than the other.”
If you end up with someone at the end of the day, pickiness probably isn’t an issue.
We’re talking about the people who don’t end up with someone.
Causes:
#1 They turned down somenone who was interested in them.
#2 They were turned down by someone who they were interested in.
Most people who date (including the successful ones) encounter both situations multiple times.
If someone has ended up alone, they could have avoided that situation by accepting one person in #1.
Since my #1 contains more/less than your #1, we can make relative statements about our pickiness.
Happy Person said: (#101)
“You have guys saying they slept with all of these women and women saying they didn’t sleep with all of these guys.”
Are you referring to a different thread, or are you misreading this one?
Saint Stephen 106
Karl R: The problem with “your game theory” is that regardless of the male gender being picky or not. if you’re unfortunate enough to fall under the large group of undesirable males your being less picky won’t get you any bonus points/edge, as women can hold out for their sub-select group of choice males to come to their right senses, due to having become financially independent.
As the Okcupid study indicates; The majority of men are unattractive to women. Hence, men seem to have already embraced your game theory by becoming the far less pickier. Apparently evidenced in their setting the bar low and adjusting their expectations in accordance to reality.
Happy person asked:
Seems to me that unless we’re talking about men stepping out with men, that the average number of partners for each gender would be the same, right?
Re: Wrong. Actually, the relationship math is quite plausible if a large percentage of women chose to mate with a small select group of choice males.
@P (#95)
You make very excellent points. I personally think you should consider writing a book on the illusion of chemistry, and i’m assuming you haven’t done so yet. You seem to be so grounded on this one.
Zaq 107
@P #95
I agree mostly, but I think you are overstating the case.
“the ugly …. have been shown to have longer-lasting and MORE satisfying relationships over the long-term”
Really ? Do not think so.
I too have read that such unions can be happy, because they accept the other person, warts and all and they work to achieving joint goals and happiness. No competition so no straying.
BUT, that is not what I observe. I had friends who stated that they married each other because no one else would have them. That ended badly.
Another guy I know is actively looking for a replacement, because the wife is so unattractive. Again best he said he could do.
Another couple who openly proclaim love, but I think there is evidence that both would eagerly jettison the other given the option.
I conclude that in the research they are probably asking the wrong questions.
I think dissatisfaction can enter two ways.
1. If either party feels they had to compromise a lot, its bound to re appear later (and that is likely to be the woman) to cause relationship stress.
2. If the couple are surrounded by more attractive couples. There is evidence that our level of satisfaction is related to our level of expectation. It is so much easier if all our friends are in the same boat.
And lets not forget that a good proportion of men and women are permanently single because they are too unattractive to the opposite sex. Too far under the bar.
I do agree with much of what you say though
Tom 108
Sorry Helen – as Karl said I exaggerated a small bit there to demonstrate Mia’s point that men have hugely varying levels of pickiness depending on what they’re looking for. Good work on the sums though
Good point Zaq; I accept I’m definitely not representative of most men (Evan is – that’s why he’s a coach!) However, I recognise myself in the men Mia, Heather & Fiona (to name a few) have met and complained about, so there’re definitely a few of us out there, and we probably have a disproportional impact.
susan 109
Mia – well done on your last post. you sound way gentler than previous comments.
i’m with you – it’s not about income, height whatever. it is about someone actually wanting to get past date 5.
the perennial question – why don’t they? and if they don’t want a LTR why put all that effort into FIVE DATES – why not stop at the first one!
P 110
Zaq…I believe you have some cultural bias going on, which is entirely understandable. My own research as well as that of colleagues does not bear out your assertions when applied as a generality across all cultures. You own observations are based in a culture (I believe, based on your writing style that you are in the United States or otherwise a culture heavily influenced by such) that has effectively created this issue and as such your observations, for that culture, are quite valid.
As a GENERAL rule, a good proportion of men and women do NOT remain single because they are “too ugly” and fall under the bar. That doesn’t even really pan out in this society based on years of research. The proportion that do for those reasons is actually fairly small…right now. It IS growing, and growing in this society only. But the reality is that regardless of this society’s emphasis on physicality, the number of people with “average” to “low” physical attractiveness is much higher than those with “high” physical attractiveness. This is even more the case when you account for cultural preferences and biases. We tend to believe the opposite or that the proportion is different because we “see” people of “higher” attractiveness and don’t see (or tend not to remember) the others. Plus, the media bombards us with images of culturally derived and driven attractive people so our collective memory tends to skew our own impression of these proportions. Someone mentioned an OKCupid study indicating that the greater majority of men were not attractive to women on here previously. Think about that for a minute. That’s a prime indicator of the cultural bias taking place. Women do have a biological desire to mate with the “best”…but society is bombarding them with a skewed impression of the availability of the “best.” The cultural belief that such men are in abundance. “Where are all these men?” Add digital enhancement, makeup, and careful selection (actors, etc) and your perceived reality is that they are out there to find. The reality is…they aren’t in ANY kind of abundance. Its the same “barbie doll” issue brought forth upon men now. Its only more dangerous in this way because the biological imperative of women is so much more picky and this society tends to let people believe acting primarily on animal instinct is the proper course.
I believe your assertions about dissatisfaction are very valid, but both points come down to one basic thing: expectations. And expectations are where this society is in a LOT of trouble when it comes to relationships. The concept of expectations plays a huge role in all the points I made previously and in fact the expectation of short-term mating “highs” applied to long-term mating goals is very instrumental.
We, as a culture, have been taught (predominantly now through media and advertising) to expect and attain the best in everything. Now, what is the “best” and what is attainable realistically? When we get back to that message in the context of long-term mating things get REALLY sticky really fast. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING in this society right now revolves around sexuality. There are lots of little reasons for this but a predominant factor in this is quite simply advertising. As we all like to say, sex sells; it appeals to that biological component we all have. Its become so pervasive in this society that one is really hard pressed to find ANYTHING that does not emphasize sexuality as an important component.
When you couple messages that emphasize sexuality as a core element in practically everything along with a society that emphasizes that the individual deserves the “best in everything” what tends to follow is that of all things we should strive for, we should have the best sexual lives and that sexuality in and of itself IS “the best” in terms of happiness in our lives. Neat little trick huh? Its a self-feeding system. If you don’t believe this, spend some time in cultures that do not have this system in place (which is actually becoming harder to find as western-style culture invades others) and you rapidly begin to see a huge difference in how people think about everything, including relationships.
So what is wrong with this? A number of things. First of all, this emphasis on sexuality affects relationships of ALL kinds. I have a colleague who is doing a long-term study that indicates that as a culture, we provide such preferential treatment in ALL areas of our lives to those with higher sexual appeal so much so that we simply don’t even consider other aspects of who they are. MUCH more than you see in other cultures. Job seekers have a MUCH higher chance of acquiring a position if they invoke sexual chemistry with interviewers–when in fact in other cultures you have a slightly LESSER chance if that happens because its viewed as a potential disruption and therefore your actual qualifications had better be even higher. Individuals in this society tend to choose non-sexual friendships based upon perceived sexual elements of the friend far more than in other cultures. In fact, in this culture its now more plausible to define sexuality as a root element in why anyone does ANYTHING, including just performing well at a job as a motivation. You simply don’t see that otherwise in the collective psychological makeup of other cultures.
When it comes to long-term mating this is basically disasterous for the cause. Regardless of what society tells you, in the modern world sexuality is (although quite fun) a rather small element of the modern life individually. Sexuality is also the prime instinct in short-term mating. Its no wonder that individuals, and especially women, place an expectation of sexual fulfillment into a goal which is really, by definition, an emotional and mental choice-set. Its no wonder that when sexual chemistry wanes, people are ill-prepared for that outcome and unable to make the transition to drive it psychologically. Its no wonder people expect sexual chemistry to “naturally” remain if they have chosen the “right” partner. It doesn’t matter that biologically the system didn’t evolve that way and in actuality has the exact OPPOSITE goal. Given that exact opposite evolutionary goal, is it any surprise that in a culture that emphasizes sex in every aspect of our lives that our expectations of long-term mating are being met with disappointment?
Back to the topic of attraction. In this society now, and as a result of expectations vs reality in ths battle, there is actually a growing inverse correlation between individual sexual attractiveness and long-term relationship stability. Because of that emphasis on short-term mating (sexuality), the more sexually attractive you are, the less likely you will remain satisfied with a long-term partner. The reason? Because you emphasize sexuality as such a core element of your life, and because this by default de-emphasizes long-term emotional goals (after all, in this society nobody talks about THAT in abundance like they do sex) you are far more likely to define sexual highs as indicative of emotional and mental relationship status. In other words, you’re more likely to covet the “high.” Yet, because its a societal imperative due to your exposure to such, when that high is not apparent, the only course of action is to define the relationship as not “right.”
Mia 111
The Toms of this world truly are a minority, but women deal with them disproportionately bc those are the guys that pursue us and ask us out. I’ve been told that bc im attractive and exotic looking, a lot of the nice, regular guys aren’t even going to approach. So most men I’ve dated, whether ugly or hot, do have a certain level of confidence and options.
But there’s a way around some of this, ive learned. The absolutely golden guys I’ve met, I’ve met through friends or work — they don’t prowl around bars or match.com as much — but they’re the guys who aren’t that good looking, or confident with women either, or approaching or focusing on them, but are just funny and interesting and real. I think women should also be less averse to talking to men first — just in a friendly way– so that they can meet more of that hidden gem group. Probably a third of men are too nerdy/weird/lack social skills to date ; another third fall into that hidden gem category; and the other third are the picky, confident pursuers. Women should really just try to be outgoing wherever they go and not in an aggressively romantic way, but just to meet more types of men than they would otherwise.
Happy Person 112
Karl 105/SS 106:
My point is that relationship math is ridiculous.
Example #1: That men have more sex than women. If we’re talking about heterosexual sex, the AVERAGE is the same for each gender. (One man has sex with three women. Team Man: 3 sexual acts. Team Woman: 3 sexual acts. One woman has sex with five men. Team Woman: 5 sexual acts. Team Man: 5 sexual acts. How it breaks out individually is irrelevant to the team total.)
Example #2: That one gender is “pickier” than the other in partnering up. You can’t measure something that doesn’t happen. You can only hypothesize about it (which is what you’re doing in #105, Karl). So if people aren’t partnering off, maybe it’s because of “pickiness”–or maybe it’s because of something else. If they ARE partnering off in a 1:1 hetero fashion, which is something you can observe and therefore measure, neither gender is being pickier than the other.
But I’m with Nathan. This is a pointless discussion. Relationship math is stupid.
Helen 113
P: I would give an amen to your post 110. Especially your point about how, when something is so pervasive in society, we hardly notice it. We might have noticed it as kids – why is there this strange emphasis on all things sexual – but we grow accustomed to it and assume it’s the normal way to think.
Except two things:
1 – I’m guessing Zaq isn’t American, but Canadian based on his diction.
2 – I don’t know of any culture or any time period where sexuality is not emphasized. Where are these cultures that you’re talking about where sexuality has a negative impact in hiring? Even our own time period isn’t unique in its overemphasis on sex. Look at Sigmund Freud. Or look at the Canterbury Tales or the Decameron. For that matter, look at the Bible. Whether these sources portray it negatively or positively, it is always there.
Happy Person 114
Addendum to above: Though I really love what P is saying in #110, even though I’m taking some of the assertions as hypotheses rather than empirically proven facts. Since you can’t really prove any of that evo psych stuff. It’s just nice to hear someone speaking about relationships as being something more complex and elevated than “guys just wanna stick it in and women just want it so they can have babies.” I mean, what grade are we in.
Zaq 115
Mia #111
So, a third of all men are completely undateable, and a third are diamonds in the rough, and a third are confident/picky, although it is unclear how many of them you would actually date. Ok i’ll buy that.
Toms are the ones that actually approach you, so that is why you have experience of the non committal ones. The reason the others do not approach is that they are scared of rejection, which is pretty much what tends to happen every time they do.
OK i’ll buy that too, but i’ll bet my bottom dollar that you’ve rejected a fair number of the non picky group as well.
I’m sure that these ‘golden guys’ are on match.com but there are no tick boxes for funny and real, but unfortunately there are for how much you earn, and your picture is everything.
That is why internet dating is such a joke.
So pretty much in agreement there Mia.
@P # 111
Mmm, so what do we agree on…
That the ‘falling in love’ hormonal effect is natures way of blinding you to the potentially significant drawbacks of the potential mate long enough for the production of offspring.
The Selfish Gene – Richard Dawkins lays the ground work in 1976 !
Further the propagation of genes may well be detrimental to the future of the organism. What happens to male spiders for goodness sake. North Pacific Salmon…
And of course the joke is on us for allowing this ‘feeling’ to become THE best indicator of compatibility, when in some instances, it could be the WORST.
So in agreement there I think. Where we do not agree is on the affect of culture.
Survival of the Prettiest – Nancy Etcoff
We are powerfully attracted to beauty, which is no myth, and there is no cultural effect, its all evolution.
Feminists have found this hard to take. This is probably because if there is no cultural element, its not possible to change things.
Men may not think about sex every 7 seconds, but its clear hormones are going to influence our decisions every single day.
The OKCupid study seemed to show lack of cultural effect on the men.
Please note that Mia, above has written off a large percentage of men. I fail to see that there is any evidence that this is due to the influence of culture.
Karl R 116
Zaq said:
“And lets not forget that a good proportion of men and women are permanently single because they are too unattractive to the opposite sex.”
I disagree with this statement. Most people get married. If you look at the population in the 65 to 74 age range, only 8% to 9% have never been married.
Furthermore, some of the people in this category have other reasons for never marrying:
- Homosexuality
- Incarcerated with life sentences
- Roman Catholic priests, monks and nuns
- Severe mental retardation or severe mental illness
While these reasons don’t prevent a person from getting married, they certainly lower the likelihood.
There probably are some people who never get married because they are unattractive. But based on the numbers I’m seeing, it’s an extremely small portion of the population.
Stephen said: (#106)
“if you’re unfortunate enough to fall under the large group of undesirable males your being less picky won’t get you any bonus points/edge,”
If a man is short, fat, bald, broke, unemployed and middle-aged, he has a low chance of finding a partner. If he decides to be picky and hold out for a young hottie, he has no chance of finding a partner.
Even though he’s in that group of undesirable males, being overly-picky hurts his chances too.
Mia said:
“I still stand by my point that men are absurdly picky when it comes to choosing a ltr – if you dont meet every predetermined requirement it’s over for them.”
I could make the same statement about women. One time, on this blog, I pointed out to a woman that she’d ruled out about 99.8% of all men, and that she might consider trying to be a little less picky.
Another woman responded that by ruling out 99.8% of men, this woman wasn’t being picky enough.
http://www.evanmarckatz.com/blog/being-amazing-may-hurt-your-chances-to-find-love/#comment-141517
I would say that picky people are disproportionately represented in the dating pool, because their pickiness prevents them from accepting the great partners they meet.
Don’t let the picky people get to you. I met plenty of overly picky women. Each picky woman could only prevent me from succeeding with one woman (herself). But by being that picky, she prevented herself from succeeding with every man.
The same principle holds true with the picky men. If they’re overly picky, it will barely slow you down. Be more concerned about being the overly picky one, because that will sink you completely.
Mia 117
Writing off a third of men is not a huge number. I’m simply being honest about who I am and am compatible with. For example, I work in the world of politics and writing. Someone who doesn’t read, or who doesn’t remotely follow current events, would be a lousy fit. I care a lot about (low budget, free wheeling) road trips and travel and do some if it solo — well, a lot of people think doing things by yourself as a woman is weird, and so I need someone who gets me and has a sense of adventure and would even want to join me. I am introverted and click best with people who are outgoing.
I’m not demanding these men be college educated, six figure earning, or smoothe and popular … But they SHOULD share my outlook on life or at least understand it.
Michael17 118
Well, this is my observation as a guy: It seems to be way too easy to get ourselves written off with you women in some ways (e.g., for not making a move fast enough or not “sparking chemistry”), and in other ways it seems to be way too hard (big red flags that women tend to ignore when the chemistry IS there). I think both genders would do a lot of good to go by the two date rule–unless the other person gives off huge red flags on the first date, they will consider a second date with him.
Michael17 119
I want to say that as a guy, I get Mia’s frustration about her staying single while a lot of other women who seemingly have less going for them, are getting into relationships. I don’t think that makes her shallow at all.
If a coworker who didn’t seem to be nearly as good as her job as you are at yours got a promotion over you, how would that make you feel? Sounds to me that Mia has been diligently going by the “dating job description” for a while and she just wants to know when it will really pay off for her.
Here’s the thing. Many of us who are still single when we get up into our late 30′s are single because we have some way-out standards. I should know because I struggle with this in myself. My point is that the guys with the more realistic standards partnered up much earlier, and now what’s left are guys who are more picky (who would benefit from a version of EMK’s advice tailored for guys). Which might explain the people who are paired up–they met in high school or college and just stayed together.
P 120
@Helen
I never said no other culture has had any emphasis on sexuality. What I was saying was as a culture, we have FAR MORE OVERemphasis on sexuality than has EVER been seen in history. Part of the reason for this is in fact our modern media and the fact that practically everyone in society has access to it. It has an astounding effect upon the group psychology. In this society, you can not escape even for a minute the constant message that sex and sexuality are the most important aspects of life. In truth, that was actually quite true in the past–not the sex itself, but the act of procreating. What we’ve done today is what I like to call “reprimitivize” ourselves…but in a modern world with different goal sets, this isn’t working out collectively in a very constructive way and the fact that this message is now used (for profit and otherwise) in a collective societal forum is creating quite a bit of mayhem.
@Zaq
Oh I never said we don’t have a biological basis for having an attraction to beauty–not at all. We’re actually most strongly attracted to (and this is true of all objects) symmetry and this has its basis in the physiology of the brain and its mechanisms of processing. There are also lesser cues which are taken relating specifically to mating.
BUT…and this is a big BUT…
“Beauty” is a self-defined term. AND, to say there is no cultural basis for modifying what we call beauty is a completely ridiculous assertion. We know symmetry is important biologically in determining something to be beautiful, yet…a great deal of modern art is asymmetrical in nature and yet defined as “beautiful” and is sought after. We know that various body types have been defined as desirable in the past as opposed to how they are seen today.
Etcoff’s assertions aren’t necessarily in conflict with what I was saying. “Beauty” is NOT completely a cultural construct…but from what I am gathering from what you are saying, it is immodifiable by culture which I do disagree with and in fact do not believe that is what her assertion was to begin with. She was starting with the feminist premise that beauty is ENTIRELY a cultural construct. I’m starting with the premise that is is of course not JUST a construct, but that constructs CAN and DO modify such basic biological instincts. Again, part of the amazing part of being human and having a complex psychology beyond that of simple creatures.
Karl R 121
Happy Person said: (#112)
“You can’t measure something that doesn’t happen.”
Really? I do it for a living. It’s a fairly common calculation in the insurance claims and in litigation.
Happy Person said: (#112)
“If they ARE partnering off in a 1:1 hetero fashion, which is something you can observe and therefore measure, neither gender is being pickier than the other.”
That’s incorrect. I’ll use an example to demonstrate.
Let’s assume we have two genders (we’ll call the genders C and D). We’ll assume a small community of 10 Cs and 10 Ds. In this community, the typical pairing is one C and one D.
Let’s assume the Cs are incredibly picky. All of the Cs want to marry one of the Ds (named D3). Not only do all of the Cs want to marry D3, but none of them will settle for any other D.
Let’s assume the Ds aren’t picky at all. They’re willing to marry any C who will have them.
D3 will marry one of the 10 Cs. The other 9 Cs will choose to remain single rather than settle for any other D. That means 9 Ds will remain single also.
Cs and Ds are still paired off on a 1:1 ratio (or equally unpaired), even though they’re at opposite ends of the pickiness spectrum (including D3, the only D who is married).
And if someone makes an observation that the Ds are too picky, there is no possible way for the Cs to benefit from that information. But there are nine Ds who could benefit from the information … if they’re willing to realize that they could be married just by being less picky.
Since men and women aren’t Cs and Ds, there’s pickiness on both sides. But there’s still no benefit in identifying the pickiness in the other person. If you’re looking to benefit, identify the pickiness within yourself and figure out which pickiness you can do without.
Happy Person said: (#112)
“Relationship math is stupid.”
If you don’t find it useful, don’t use it.
I did find it useful. It helps some people get a different perspective on specific dating problems.
Happy Person 122
Karl 121:
1) Extrapolating is not measuring something that has occurred, although measuring something that has occurred goes into the calculation of an extrapolation.
2) In your scenario, you assume (note that word) that pickiness is the reason that people aren’t getting married. To be clearer: In the real world you cannot isolate (your word “identify”) pickiness as a variable in mate selection, given that there are so many other variables in our imperfect world, and “pickiness” is hardly an observable quality that can be measured anyway. So your scenario above is very nicely thought out and I applaud the effort. And you’d be right if your initial assumption were true. If it were able to be proved it wouldn’t be an assumption, though.
3) True, I don’t use relationship math. I prefer to use my math skills in other ways that are useful to me.
susan 123
pickiness = not that into you. in one person you might be picky about their physical appearance, yet another might have the same basic characteristics and you’ll find it irresistable. its simply about that ”click” with the whole package.
what one considers needy another considers honest. what one considers attentive another considers clingy.
i am beginning to think its just about a numbers game. and in the meantime i just keep on being the wonderful person that these dates tell me i am…and hope that one day one of them will want to get beyond ”lets be friends cos you’re so awesome”
Mia 124
Michael – interesting point about the age. I have another theory that men get their hearts broken at an early age and then just take Years to recover. The only 2 men whose hearts I broke were 20 and the nicest guys. Nearly a decade later they’re noncommittal men, one a raging player who’s said that my dumping him influenced that. well, I’ve been hurt lots of times and I’m not a commitment phobe …
Then, I remember reading a comment on this site by a woman who says shes had dates with guys where they had great make outs and got along well and she still didn’t feel compelled to see them again and didnt know why; a lot of people are like that.
Are There really so many emotionally screwed up people walking around? What more is needed to be bf/gf if two people are attracted enough to enjoy sex, have fun together and get each other , and share similar life outlooks? Do people want heaven and earth to shake and lightening to flash?
Karl R 125
Happy Person said: (#122)
“In the real world you cannot isolate (your word ‘identify’) pickiness as a variable in mate selection, given that there are so many other variables in our imperfect world,”
“‘pickiness’ is hardly an observable quality that can be measured anyway.”
I disagree with those opinions.
Pickiness can be isolated:
Numerous sources identify the primary causes for divorce (poor communication, financial disagreements, infidelity, abuse, etc.) and the traits which cause a happy marriage (shared goals, shared values, good commuication, sexual compatibility, etc.)
If I eliminate a potential date based on a trait which won’t make my marriage happier, which won’t prevent my marriage from falling apart and won’t affect my health, that’s pickiness.
Pickinesss is an observeable quality:
On this blog, people frequently state what they’re looking for in a man or woman. If you look at an online dating site, you can see the criteria people are looking for. Then isolate all the criteria that don’t make a marriage happy, don’t prevent a marriage from falling apart, and don’t affect a partner’s health.
There may be additional criteria that the person hasn’t mentioned/listed, but at least you can identify a minimum level.
Pickinesss is a measureable quality:
For online dating, this is simple. If someone is only willing to date a partner who over/under a certain height, I can check to see what percentage of men/women in that region meet that requirement. And I can repeat that for every criteria they use which I have already isolated.
If dating that’s not online, I’ll have to track down the relevant data from other sources. It’s a little more time-consuming, but it’s possible to find demographics on most of the common criteria, and some you wouldn’t even expect.
And if someone has a really oddball requirement (“I want someone who has their own individual style”), you can simply ask them what percentage of men/women fit that description.
After that, it’s just a simple math problem. If someone is ruling out 20% of men/women for height, 35% for hair color and 85% for style, They’ve eliminated 92% of potential partners purely out of pickiness.
Face it. This isn’t engineering. The calculation doesn’t need to be accurate out to twelve significant digits. If I tell someone that they’ve eliminated 92% of the population with three criteria … and point out that some of the remaining 8% are going to be jerks, or just not interested, then that is usually enough to get someone to reconsider some of their less essential criteria.
I don’t need my fiancée to be within 5 years of my age to love her for the rest of my life. And as Sheryl Paul indicated, if I’m completely unwilling to compromise on something like that, how am I going to be about all the compromises that arise as part of being married?
Paragon 126
“As a GENERAL rule, a good proportion of men and women do NOT remain single because they are “too ugly” and fall under the bar.”
I don’t think anyone is claiming that.
The argument was one of relationship dissatisfaction, if I recall correctly.
” Women do have a biological desire to mate with the “best”…but society is bombarding them with a skewed impression of the availability of the “best.” The cultural belief that such men are in abundance. “Where are all these men?””
I’m not even sure the most obstinate single female is naive enough to believe that such men are in abundance – they are
simply not willing to compromise their biological mating instincts, no matter how this hinder’s their prospects – they would rather play a lottery.
But, I agree with you that mass-communication media has skewed perceptions of normal, with important implications for the evolutionary principle of Koinophilia(ie. contrast this with centuries ago, where rural life was the norm, and expectations were locally ‘bounded’).
“Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING in this society right now revolves around sexuality. There are lots of little reasons for
this but a predominant factor in this is quite simply advertising.”
I come from a different(naturalist) bias than you, but I would attribute this to the fact that ecological selection
pressures(in prosperous, developed world populations) are now so relaxed, that there is a far greater emphasis on sexual selection as a result(ie. sexual selection pressures have filled the void left by diminishing ecological selection
pressures).
“If you don’t believe this, spend some time in cultures that do not have this system in place (which is actually becoming
harder to find as western-style culture invades others) and you rapidly begin to see a huge difference in how people think about everything, including relationships.”
I agree.
But, because individual day-to-day lives in such devloping cultures are more challenging, the expectations tend to differ.
Because they are less prosperous, these populations are(by necessity) less tolerant of selfish free-riders(mating
distributions can be seen as a free-rider problem for evolutionary stability, with implications for sub-replacement
fertility, and, in particular the demographic economic paradox), which are the vector of selfish expectations.
And this is what we are really observing – a population where there is too much free floating(ie. systemic) prosperity is
rife for the indulgence of selfish/biological concerns.
Where, in less prosperous systems, increased personal liability *compels* individuals to temper their selfish concerns with rational foresight(ie. no promiscuous single mothers, emboldened by an enabling welfare state).
This level of critical apprehension is absent in a sufficiently prosperous population.
Ultimately, this is an evolutionary problem of systemic prosperity.
“So what is wrong with this? A number of things. First of all, this emphasis on sexuality affects relationships of ALL kinds.
I have a colleague who is doing a long-term study that indicates that as a culture, we provide such preferential treatment in ALL areas of our lives to those with higher sexual appeal so much so that we simply don’t even consider other aspects of who they are. MUCH more than you see in other cultures. Job seekers have a MUCH higher chance of acquiring a position if they invoke sexual chemistry with interviewers–when in fact in other cultures you have a slightly LESSER chance if that happens because its viewed as a potential disruption and therefore your actual qualifications had better be even higher. Individuals in this society tend to choose non-sexual friendships based upon perceived sexual elements of the friend far more than in other cultures. In fact, in this culture its now more plausible to define sexuality as a root element in why anyone does ANYTHING, including just performing well at a job as a motivation. You simply don’t see that otherwise in the collective psychological makeup of other cultures.”
Again, there is a natutarlist, evolutionary, explanation for this obssessed, sexualized ethos that we observe in western
society.
And it is exactly what we should expect.
““Beauty” is a self-defined term. AND, to say there is no cultural basis for modifying what we call beauty is a completely ridiculous assertion. We know symmetry is important biologically in determining something to be beautiful, yet…a great deal of modern art is asymmetrical in nature and yet defined as “beautiful” and is sought after. We know that various body types have been defined as desirable in the past as opposed to how they are seen today.”
Yes, in the past – in an era, where expectations were (admittedly)less skewed.
“Etcoff’s assertions aren’t necessarily in conflict with what I was saying. “Beauty” is NOT completely a cultural construct…
but from what I am gathering from what you are saying, it is immodifiable by culture which I do disagree with and in fact do not believe that is what her assertion was to begin with. She was starting with the feminist premise that beauty is ENTIRELY a cultural construct. I’m starting with the premise that is is of course not JUST a construct, but that constructs CAN and DO modify such basic biological instincts.”
Within limits, and *only* when these instincts are constrained by very real pressures(as I spoke to above with the prosperity ‘problem’).
In effect, *compelling* individuals to make compromises.
@ Happy Person
“To be clearer: In the real world you cannot isolate (your word “identify”) pickiness as a variable in mate selection, given that there are so many other variables in our imperfect world, and “pickiness” is hardly an observable quality that can be measured anyway.”
I can’t measure quantum jiggle, but that doesn’t prevent me from reasonably and *justifiably* inferring that it is exists.
Happy Person 127
Karl@25, what unit do you use for measuring “pickiness”?
Is this a standard that your employer would accept?
Fiona 128
Paragon@126 I think calling people who won’t commit to others they aren’t actually interested in “selfish free-riders” is a bit harsh unless they are mistresting others. Most have loved unconditionally and selflessly in the past and would have settled for life with one person but have been left. Maybe for some they just never will find a love like that again. That doesn’t make them any worse people than the people who were not left and did marry the one they loved, the widowed, or the people that settle without love. People don’t have an obligation to society to find another mate if they don’t find love again. The human race will survive it. There are also other contributions that one can make to society. I think most of us are aware that by looking for love, we run the risk of never finding it and being alone but that is one of life’s risks and not the worst thing that can happen – settling is. Anyone who thinks they settled is never going to be happy. They will make all the very hard compromises that relationships need and not even for love.
Chemistry if often the catalyst for relationships. What gets ignored on this blog is that a lot of those relationships actually do work out in the long term even after it fades. Without it I wonder how many of us on this blog would actually exist in the first place. Not many I suspect.
Happy Person 129
Paragon 126: We aren’t discussing whether or not something exists, we’re discussing what is measurable and what isn’t. I hold that you can’t quantify the hows and whys of relationships and that the results of any such attempts are dubious at best.
But I have no problem with mystery and black swans and other things that lie outside of our control.
That’s why I’m a happy person.
P 130
@Paragon
I would only disagree with one of your assertions. That being the lack of critical apprehension. I believe it exists, but in a form we have never had to deal with before: Mental and/or emotional stability and well-being. It exists for the exact reasoning you give with a twist. Prosperity in other forms giving way to increased time to indulge in other areas including selfish biological mating instincts. That’s the critical point: As a general rule we do desire the long-term supportive role in a mate, yet as a result of allowing ourselves to “indulge” in simply sitting back and letting primitive biological instinct take control, we put in the driver’s seat something that is ill-suited and even purposefully detrimental to achieving this end. Life IS generally easier now in the evolutionary context, but I would also argue that it’s harder now in the psychological and emotional realm. Unfortunately, our basic evolution has no tools for this right now and has not compensated for the needs of a more intelligent species with a complex psychology. We may actually be seeing the “fail point” for simple biological evolution in that context, and the point where we, as a species and individually need to “evolve” using that complex higher brain function directly in order to move to the next level.
I agree with your reasoning as a whole as to the reasons WHY we see these effects in this society and others. However, one reason I don’t tend to directly go down that road in academic form is that in general forums what I tend to find is that many individuals see this as almost as an excuse for their unhappiness and an unchangable paradigm. For the reason I gave above and because we do have a somewhat different advantage over less evolved species with higher cognitive functions, I don’t believe that excuse is valid for the individual. I believe in this environment the individual has two choices:
1) Maintain their desire to indulge in simple biologically-driven mating instincts and allow that long-term mating will likely not be successful.
OR
2) Re-prioritize emotional and mental well-being as a goal therefore greatly increasing the chances of long-term mating and partnership.
Its definitely a problematic arrangement because, for the exact reasons you gave, individuals will look at that choice set and stomp their feet and say “but I want both!” Problematically, its terribly difficult to demonstrate to people that they can’t really have everything. That they can’t really have selfish indulgence AND emotional and mental fulfillment and stability/support for life–by definition these two elements are often in complete conflict with one another. Instead, they will find some way of locking onto an example that says you can (without fully examining everything about that example and therefore seeing that both didn’t REALLY happen…expectations from the start were actually different), and ignoring the multitide of examples which negate their assertion.
P 131
@Fiona 128
Fiona, biological chemistry doesn’t get “ignored” on this blog. Though in a lot of cases I believe it should be or at least toned down quite a bit. Your assertion that “a lot” of relationships do work out when their beginnings are rooted in biological chemistry only has validity if you define your bounds. In western society, this is actually a somewhat false statement as the overwhelming majority of relationships do not “work out” or result in life-partners which remain together until one partner dies.
“Without it I wonder how many of us on this blog would actually exist in the first place. Not many I suspect.”
Fiona, this statement isn’t really valid in the argument context. Much of what has been talked about here is life-partnership or LONG-TERM mating and how “chemistry” and biological instinct is TERRIBLE as a selector for these goals. Having a child is actually exactly what “chemistry” and biological instinct is all about. How many of us on here have divorced parents? The chemistry worked fine and created a child…the long-term outcome for the couple (your parents) wasn’t so fine (in terms of having a life-long partner). You’re arguing apples and oranges here.
Plus, if I might add, you don’t HAVE to have the “butterflies” to have a child.
“Anyone who thinks they settled is never going to be happy. They will make all the very hard compromises that relationships need and not even for love.”
THAT is an EXCELLENT point. Only…I don’t think you realize why. Your operative word in this entire thing is THINKS. You’re right…anyone who THINKS they “settled” is going to be unhappy. So, if you have expectations that cannot be reasonably met over a lifetime with someone, you will always THINK you “settled.” Fiona…again, it comes back to YOUR expectations. You’re putting the cart before the horse. Your EXPECTATIONS drive your interpretation of whether or not you “settled.” If those expectations have little chance of being met, well…there’s little chance you will ever feel you didn’t “settle.” YOU are responsible for that feeling of “settled/not settled”…not some undefinable thing you have no control over.
Helen 132
P and Paragon: no offense, but it doesn’t sound as though you have much experience in the developing world. You are making pronouncements about how things are there that are completely untrue.
“Because they are less prosperous, these populations are(by necessity) less tolerant of selfish free-riders(mating distributions can be seen as a free-rider problem for evolutionary stability, with implications for sub-replacement fertility, and, in particular the demographic economic paradox), which are the vector of selfish expectations”
This is completely untrue in western Africa, southern Africa, and rural China, to name just three places among many. Free-riders abound, and they are primarily men. Women do almost all the economic work in subsistence communities. In southern Africa, this is at least in part because many men of working age are infected with HIV, although that trend is changing.
By the way, I think it’s selfish to propagate. Propagating is inherently a selfish thing, as you are attempting to pass on your genes, which is a biological imperative. Look at what Zaq had to say about “The Selfish Gene” (great book).
If there’s one trend I see in these comments as well as in society in general, it’s this tendency to over-romanticize the past, or to romanticize developing cultures. There’s this idea that they’re inherently more moral, when in fact it is selfishness and survival (not necessarily bad things) that have driven all cultures at all times. Even the tendency to form societies and to cooperate has selfish roots.
P 133
@Helen
I have A LOT of experience in the developing world. I spend a great deal of my time in such places and I do a great deal of research related to the differences between such cultures and western interpretations. I think you are viewing the little “debate” going on here out of context and based on some of the other context around it. Admittedly, some of the conversation between Paragon, I, and Zaq got a little off topic but it is interesting anyway.
The “free rider problem” isn’t necessarily limited to economic considerations and that has to be remembered when viewing things from a genetic or evolutionary standpoint.
Zaq’s comments about “The Selfish Gene” were pretty on-target in the context it was put forth. Have you read the text? It’s rather fascinating…but it also isn’t centric upon humans. It’s more generic than that and in fact how it relates to humans (which do have a distinct difference in that we DO have higher cognitive functions and a more complex psychology) is still very hotly debated. Dawkins did intoduce the concept of the “meme” where he discusses culture as a replicating element in an of itself.
I don’t see anyone here over-romanticizing anything. In fact, I see the opposite. There was nothing “romantic” about the selection mechanisms used in past societies…in fact I would argue at length that they no longer apply and should not be used. What I see now (and that Paragon and Zaq have also given credibility to) is that with a lack of other meaningful reasons for FORCING long-term mating…we no longer have a stable mechanism to create such bonding and have defaulted back to (albeit “romanticized” in and of itself) the most primitive of selection mechanisms which are tailored only towards short-term mating. Thus, we have the high percentage (which steadily rises during prosperous times) of failed long-term relationship bonds.
We have two choices as individuals in this mess. We either decide that life-long and long-term mating is no longer required and therefore we should not EXPECT such things to occur or even be looking for it, or we use that wonderful higher cognitive ability we have which DOES set us apart from other creatures and make such selections based on emotional and/or mental considerations for life. Such long-term bonds will generally not be sexual by nature, though expression of sexuality is still desirable from an emotional standpoint. Many people who are unable to ascend from primitive shackles will view this as “settling” as the established dogma is that you can get both and one will lead to the other (despite the fact that they are in utter conflict with each other). But in fact I see it in a light of evolving past animal considerations and towards those that are more supportive, lasting, and real for the human experience.
Zaq 134
@Helen #132
So true, and may I apologize on behalf of my gender for making such insensitive remarks about your physique.
In our defense, women are incredibly sensitive about any form of criticism of looks, which we are not tuned into.
Someone I know was training for a very physically demanding event, and I complimented her on the improvement in her looks. This was immediately taken as a criticism of how she USED to look.
And why do women ask “does my butt look big in this ?” What’s our response supposed to be exactly ?
Sorry to have to tell you this but I am shocked at how many women go out of their way to point out to me the physical flaws in other women. Women seem far more aware of their ‘competition’ than men.
P #131 – what you have is a premise, but if it is not true the argument is invalid.
Watch this video. Denis Dutton is a philosophy of arts professor
http://www.ted.com/talks/denis_dutton_a_darwinian_theory_of_beauty.html
The influence of culture sounds really plausible, but you need evidence.
Creationists reject evolution. They do so for philosophical reasons, but they try to interpret the data to support their view.
For example if evolution is true, you would expect to see an increase in organisms complexity over time. In the fossil layers we see just that, with simpler creatures at the deepest geological strata.
Creationists counter with “the strata is a result of Noah’s flood, and the more complex creatures could run up the hills when the waters rose, whereas, the simpler creatures were quickly buried, which explains the observation of complex organisms in higher strata”
Interesting argument, but how did the trees run up the hill ?
So having an argument is clearly not enough. Does it really fit the data.
Open SHAKESPEARE – As You Like It. About 1600
Touchstone speaking about accepting a girl, who through lack of beauty has been left on the fence. “…a poor virgin,sir, an ill-favoured thing, sir, but mine own; a poor humour of mine, sir, to take that that no man else will”
Rosalind explaining to Phebe that given her dating value, it would help if she lowered her sights. “For I must tell you friendly in your ear: Sell when you can; you are not for all markets!”
Seems to me that nothing has changed at all !
Helen 135
P: Okay, my apologies. I do wonder, though, when I see comments about how people aren’t as sexually motivated in other parts of the world (sexual organisms are sexually motivated, period), or some of the comments from our fellow commenter about how there are few free-riders in developing nations and that their having lots of children is somehow indicative of selflessness. Oy.
Zaq: you’re responding to my post in another thread, right? Here, I was talking about The Selfish Gene by Dawkins.
Fiona 136
P@126 actually the divorce rate is here is 50% so if we assume that most people who get married do actually feel chemistry (and I think we can take that as a given) then half work out in the long term. OK, the odds aren’t brilliant but I am not sure anyone has evidence that people who didn’t have chemistry are more successful in the longer term either. My parents had chemistry and they are still married 40 years later so chemistry (despite being short term) and compatibility (despite being long term) can co-exist and it seems that at least half of the time that they do. They are not mutually exclusive.
P 137
@Fiona:
I never said chemistry and compatibility were mutually exclusive. I also said relationships, and not marriages. That the divorce rate when it comes to marriages is only 50% is actually a testament to value systems which still stigmatize divorce (which are rapidly declining). I’m involved right now in gathering data in a study which, if these numbers are to be believed, and I believe they are, if those value systems were shut off, the true divorce rate would rapidly climb into the 80-90% range. At that point, and with that kind of failure rate, marriage, and life-term mating in general become obsolete.
Regardless of that, the actual “chemistry” your parents felt (if in fact they did) is long since gone. It was within a few years of their coupling. As to the reasons they stayed together–that is between them. Perhaps it was that they developed compatibility along the way. Perhaps it was they didn’t feel any other option was better. And so on and so forth…but, I can all but guarantee you that they do not feel “chemistry” (in the biological sense we’ve been discussing) and haven’t felt THAT for a LONG time.
And…THAT is the point I’ve been trying to make in a very rational way: IF you desire a life-long relationship, and IF you are aware that the biological “chemistry” will be gone shortly into that relationship (and let’s stay away from calling compatibility “chemistry”–that’s already become a point of confusion), then WHY demand it as a relationship prerequisite for intelligent, rational human beings who are more complex than their basic reproductive systems.
Paragon 138
@ Fiona
“I think calling people who won’t commit to others they aren’t actually interested in “selfish free-riders” is a bit harsh
unless they are mistresting others.”
I meant that in evolutionary game theoretic terms, where the evolutionary stability of a population can be perturbed from
status quo, and observed in the behavioral trends of a
population(such as where choice-sets become significantly skewed over some interval of time – which is what we can observe in developed world populations, particularly with respect to mating and reproductive choices).
In such a case, the selfish interests of individuals could be expected to come into conflict with conditions for the
evolutionary stability of a population.
An agreement of data and theory suggests that these western trends are speaking to a dynamic which is increasingly, and disproportionately, enabling selfish choices.
@ Happy Person
“Paragon 126: We aren’t discussing whether or not something exists, we’re discussing what is measurable and what isn’t. I hold that you can’t quantify the hows and whys of relationships and that the results of any such attempts are dubious at best.”
You can assume quantities for ad-hoc purposes.
Not rigorous, perhaps, but if the inferences have a sound basis I agree with Karl R on their strategic
usefulness as analytical aids.
@ Helen
P and Paragon: no offense, but it doesn’t sound as though you have much experience in the developing world. You are making pronouncements about how things are there that are completely untrue.
“Because they are less prosperous, these populations are(by necessity) less tolerant of selfish free-riders(mating
distributions can be seen as a free-rider problem for evolutionary stability, with implications for sub-replacement
fertility, and, in particular the demographic economic paradox), which are the vector of selfish expectations”
This is completely untrue in western Africa, southern Africa, and rural China, to name just three places among many. Free-riders abound, and they are primarily men. Women do almost all the economic work in subsistence communities. In southern Africa, this is at least in part because many men of working age are infected with HIV, although that trend is changing.”
A division of labor is not speaking to a free-riding problem, per se, so long as interactions tend to exchange quantities of
reciprocal value(even if your ‘liberated’ sensebilities fail to see the equity in these interactions, which is not
surprising).
But, the subtlety you are failing to grasp is that poorly developed, less prosperous populations are more reliant upon *local* network interations – which *invariably* resist selfish interactions compared to large/diffuse network interactions(a characteristic dynamic of more prosperous, more developed populations).
This is not just my opinion, but follows from findings that have been experimentally validated in game theoretic trials(see Martin Nowak’s 2006 paper on the evolution of co-operation).
Do I romanticize developing world populations?
A little.
But, I am not so ignorant of them as you suppose.
Fiona 139
p@137 you keep advising people to act against their biological nature. That’s fine but totally unrealistic and therefore doesn’t really help anyone. Much better that people have tips on how to manage the risks that go with it i.e. don’t make choices exclusively based on those factors.
P@138 not sure age expectancy suggests we are in any sort of crisis in evolutionary terms. Survival of the fittest is working very well it seems.
For those men out there that are having trouble attracting women there is almost always something you can to improve chemistry levels. I suspect that the reason men find a higher percentage of women attractive is that women in general make a lot more effort to be attractive. If you have bad teeth, see a dentist. If you are overweight, go on a diet. Take up sport. If you are just not good looking, work on your humour. Don’t just do nothing and complain that women are too picky.
Helen 140
Paragon: what would those “reciprocal values” be in west Africa? Southern Africa? Rural Asia?
You know as well as we do that these game theoretic trials assume people optimize their choices and are perfectly rational actors in a complex setting. Where exactly do you expect to see this regularly anywhere in the world? That’s right – nowhere. This guy Nowak doesn’t appear to have significant experience among developing world populations either.
“But, I am not so ignorant of them as you suppose.”
The points you made fail to convince.
Helen 141
Fiona – just want to say that I like your commonsensical, non-academic comments, like this one:
“Chemistry if often the catalyst for relationships. What gets ignored on this blog is that a lot of those relationships actually do work out in the long term even after it fades. Without it I wonder how many of us on this blog would actually exist in the first place.”
So true, every point.
kenley 142
I didn’t want to get caught in this chemistry debate because it never feels as if people are really listening to each other and trying to learn something. However, what I will say is that I think that chemistry in the way that Paragon and P et el are referring to it is that intense physical attraction that makes you want to have SEX with someone. Fiona may be right that chemistry is probably responsible for why many of us exist today — but it’s NOT the reason why people stay together. And, more importantly, people do not need the absolute highest level of chemical attraction to want to get together either.
I wonder how many people have really experienced that def-con level of animal attraction that I think these guys are referring to. I have — just once in my life and I can tell you that it SUCKS. The attraction was instant, intense, and really inexplicable. I felt like all the cells in my body were being pulled to him before he even opened his month. My skin tingled and my heart would beat faster when I would hear his voice. He was pretty much all I could think about and all I wanted to think about. He was not classically handsome in anyway, but he was tall and had a presence. He was was my first lover — I was an addict and he was my drug. I’d do anything to be with him. For him, I was just a pleasant diversion. I didn’t break free from him until he moved to another city. He happened to me more than 20 years ago. But just writing about him, brings back all those old feelings.
I have never felt that way about another man and frankly I don’t want to feel that way. I’ve had 3 long term relationships since– the longest of which was 17 years. I did not have that level of chemistry with any of my long term guys. I liked them. I was attracted to them. But, I did not have that I want to be with you..I’ll do anything and let you do anything to me to be with you feeling. With the animal chemistry guy, I was completely out of control and I don’t ever want to feel like that again.
P 143
@Fiona#139
Fiona, I don’t think you understand and haven’t fully grasped what I (and others) have been saying. I am NOT advising people TO go against their biological instincts, although in reality we actually do so all the time.
I’m trying to tell you that if you (as I suspect you do) desire a life-long mate and partner, you are ALREADY GOING AGAINST YOUR BIOLOGICAL INSTINCTS. I’m not advocating you do anything that you aren’t already attempting to do (which you yourself call “unrealistic”). Your biological instincts are actually completely and utterly opposed to the concept of mating for life. Your biological instincts want you to procreate with a man (hence, the biological chemistry at first), have and begin to rear the child (the short-term chemical bond which maintains this), then pull away from that partner to find another you have “chemistry” with and start the process all over (the “fading” of chemistry and the dulling of sexual attraction on a biological level). This ensures wider genetic diversity than one mate for life, and is ENTIRELY how you are programmed on the biological level. You do NOT have a biological “chemistry” or instinct for life-term, or even long-term (by modern standards) mating!
Don’t you see? Using biological “chemistry” as the mechanism for selecting a life-mate means you are also believing in the same mechanism for selection that ultimately will actually FIGHT AGAINST your desired psychological goal of desiring the same person there for life. If you believe fighting this instinct is unrealistic and put your faith in its power of selection, then when it tells you its no longer there and will be somewhere else (which it WILL), you will follow that belief at that point too. By putting your faith in this instinct, you are actually stacking the cards against yourself in your goal.
This is the big problem. Non-monogamous animals (which, as its turning out, is MOST animals) have this instinct in one form or another as well, but…they don’t have the psychological and emotional desires for life-partners that we do. Those desires are BY DEFINITION outside of those biological instincts. They may have roots in other aspects of our evolution, but instinctually you have nothing when it comes to staying with one person for life. Nothing. Nada.
You are already fighting your own instincts. If you wish to have any chance of winning that battle, you are going to have to throw away the blind faith in that instinct. Those that stay together for life are making a CHOICE to do so that has nothing to do with innate biological chemistry. Whether you have it at first or not, eventually you will not have it…and will be forced to be in this exact same decision-making process. In fact, it MIGHT be worse for you, depending on your psychology as you HAD this biological chemistry, but now its gone…and you’re forced to actually WORK psychologically to maintain any sexual attraction for your partner. Looking at the failure rates, many people either aren’t up to this task or aren’t willing to undetake it.
If your goal in life is to have a string of biologically-driving highs, followed by cooling and then let-down, then selecting another for this, and so on and so forth, then that’s valid and feel free. What I’ve been doing here is trying to tell people that this is a perfectly valid choice as well…but if you feel you want something for life…something more emotionally and mentally stable for you in the long term (if that is a desire and need of yours), something has to change in the selection process.
Mia 144
I’m confused by this chemistry debate, because to me chemistry is when you meet someone and maybe right away, or maybe after 3 dates, you discover that you can’t stop talking because you click and feel really comfortable around each other and “get” each other. You’re also physically attracted to each other but the excitement is just as much if not more so about discovering someone who you just CLICK with.
It’s not unreasonable to want to have that kind of connection with someone, as long as you understand that you can’t just go around discarding people on the first date if you don’t experience it in the first hour of meeting them. And as long as you understand that there are MANY people in this world that you are capable of having that click with, if you stop being so emotionally stunted and let people show you what they have to offer before writing them off.
That said, we all know the values and ideas that are important to us and it doesn’t hurt to drop certain things into conversation very early on to see if this is a person we KNOW we can’t click with. For example, I could never be with someone who thought the Iraq war was a good idea – though I don’t mind dating a Republican – and see no harm in asking their thoughts on it on a first or second date. I never debate or argue about it, just curious about their value systems. I could never feel comfortable dating someone who was materialistic and cared a lot about having a nice car and fancy house. I’m also unlikely to click with a man who’s too locked into gender roles and stereotypes of a man pursuing a hard to get woman and wanting to do all the work – that’s fine in the first few months but I’d click best with someone like Karl or Nathan who wants more of an equal partnership.
Anyway, I think there’s definitely a way to get the amazing chemistry and compatibility we want by taking the time to get to know people, weeding out people who truly don’t share our values, and so on, but there is a way to go about trying to get that and it’s not demanding that it be present on the first date, or manifest itself in instantaneous lust. And you definitely don’t have to settle for a relationship with someone who feels like your brother.
P 145
Mia,
Your approach is much more reasonable given having a goal of a life-partner than many people. Part of what you’re looking for is “chemistry”…an attraction of sorts. But you seem far more capable of driving that attraction by the emotional responses to compatibility. That’s actually a really good start.
However, if I see one more person using the term “settling” in a derogatory fashion I’m going to scream. Here’s cold, hard reality: you’re going to settle. You’ve settled for things all of your life up until now and you’re going to settle until the day you die. Your choices in life aren’t whether or not you will settle, but on WHAT you will settle. In either case, there’s settling involved.
I know…people hate thinking this way because they’ve been told all their lives how special they are and how they can have everything they want. Its not only improbable that you can, but so improbable as to be near the side of impossible. Everyone settles on everything at one point or another. Part of the basic reason for this is that no matter what you have, you’ll end up wanting more…or different. Your needs or desires will change as you are a constantly changing creature.
Every person who “compromises” in any aspect is SETTLING–that’s what compromising IS! This idea that people don’t have to settle in their relationships is absolutely asinine. If you care so much about your sexuality that you are unwilling to settle for a much lesser degree of “chemistry” you will settle later emotionally or mentally when that chemistry fades if you want to keep the relationship. Or, you’ll settle now for things that are going to have longer-reaching implications in your life with this person in order to have that “feeling” for the time being.
Or, the less you’re willing to settle (a.k.a, compromise) in your demands of a partner now, you more you’re have to SETTLE for the flip-side of that: The very real possibility you’ll end up alone in the end. Whether that be all along or at the end of your life, when you most need someone there with the emotional knowledge of someone who’s been there all along–when attraction and “chemistry” mean absolutely nothing. When you’re scared in that place where all you care about is that this particular someone will hold your hand as things become dark for you. If you want to call that “just” a friendship you go right ahead and do that and keep seeking your “romantic love.”
Fiona 146
Helen@141. Thanks. Common sense goes a long way in my line of work if I want people to actually be able to understand my advice let alone act on it – theory is great but doesn’t help people to make decisions. I would say the same about relationship advice. Having great academic relationship theories are all very well in theory but pointless if no-one is going to want to practice them.
P@143 I full understand your argument but you do not seem to have understood mine at all. At no point have I argued that chemistry keeps people together in the long term or that it lasts in the long term. I do however continue to think however that you can have chemistry with someone in the short term that you are also compatible with emotionally and intellectually in the long term. I have felt chemistry many times in my life. Through a process of trial and error I have learned that it is not much use to me without compatibility as well so if there is only chemistry and no compatibility, I walk away. My biological instincts and emotional and intellectual needs are not battling it out in a grand showdown in the way that you imply but are now acting in harmony.
P 147
@Mia: I realize that last post looked like I was saying that directly at you. The latter portion about “settling” was actually directed at numerous previous comments made by people who continually talk about not “settling.”
Selena 148
Mia,
It’s understandable you are confused. On this blog the word “chemistry” is most oft used as a synonym for initial attraction. Despite the fact many of us define as much more than that – the personality, emotional, mental compatibility as well as sexual. The “click”, the “get each other” as you wrote is what some of us understand chemistry to be.
Since we can’t get everyone to call initial sexual attraction uh…initial sexual attraction…or just plain lust – the debate over “chemistry” goes on.
Eljem 149
I think P has some good points. However, I take issue with the following @145:
“The very real possibility you’ll end up alone in the end. Whether that be all along or at the end of your life, when you most need someone there with the emotional knowledge of someone who’s been there all along–when attraction and “chemistry” mean absolutely nothing. When you’re scared in that place where all you care about is that this particular someone will hold your hand as things become dark for you. If you want to call that “just” a friendship you go right ahead and do that and keep seeking your ‘romantic love’.”
Sadly, you can play everything “right”, ie, form a stable and happy relationship based on compatibility and shared values, and still end up facing the end of your life alone and scared – it’s called your partner dying before you.
I had a serious relationship with a man who is significantly older than me, and when I was with him I had to let go of the idea that my partner would be there at the end of my life. I’m not saying it couldn’t have happened but probability said it most likely wouldn’t. So I do wish we (the collective we, not the author and readers of this blog) could avoid basing arguments on the premise that doing things one way (whoever’s way that is) guarantees a partner by your side for the rest of your life. I believe a good relationship is a wonderful thing, and will improve my life significantly, but I don’t see it as a panacea, or as the answer to life, the universe and everything. Life’s too complex for that.
nathan 150
All the attempts to understand and debate love solely based on logic and reasoning are absurd. And rather comical, if not also a bit irritating. There are elements of love that are unexplainable, that can’t be pinned down by all the research and theory in the world. Consider that poets, musicians, and visual artists have always been the gatekeepers of love. Why? Because they find a way to touch that which people actually experience.
Furthermore, the frequent appeals to evolutionary psychology and it’s variants are a major weakness in the modern American dating world. Instead of a diversity of dating/relationship theories and research approaches, the majority of what I see out there is either evo psych focused or personal experience based. Open many popular magazines or dating books these days, and you’ll basically find a combination of these two. This isn’t to say that there aren’t a wide diversity of other views/approaches out there, but that they tend to get minimized or dismissed all together.
This is even true when the conclusions reached are similar, but the understanding of the human interactions that led to those conclusions is entirely different. I’d argue that some of Evan’s writings, for example, fall under that category. In fact, whereas evo psych folks often defend things like “instinctual cheating,” Evan routinely says quality men aren’t ruled by biological impulses. I tend to go further though, and question the idea that we actually know for sure how strongly certain things – like promiscuity or wanting monogamy, for example – are biologically determined anyway. When much of the research being cited is conducted on middle and upper class North Americans and Europeans, using ideas an frameworks developed by the same people, the only intelligent thing to do is to question.
Instead of more paragraphs, here is a poem from Rumi.
Some Kiss We Want
There is some kiss we want with
our whole lives, the touch of
spirit on the body. Seawater
begs the pearl to break its shell.
And the lily, how passionately
it needs some wild darling! At
night, I open the window and ask
the moon to come and press its
face against mine. Breathe into
me. Close the language- door and
open the love window. The moon
won’t use the door, only the window.
Happy Person 151
Helen 151: Had a chuckle at your words. In the world of microfinance they don’t even bother to extend the micro-loans to the males in these developing regions for exactly the reasons you cite.
To all: Sounds like we can’t even define “chemistry,” much less come up with some good, workable relationship math units to measure it. Now NO ONE is going to get together and the future of the planet is doomed! We better get some really smart people on this one STAT.
Saint Stephen 152
Helen, you’re flat out wrong about about how relationship transpires in West Africa. Except you’ve done farm-work ( and i’m referring to manual labor type – not mechanized) Then you clearly lack the knowledge of the great deal of tremendous energy needed to cultivate crops enough to sustain a family and society in such parts of the world. Saying the men there are idling away, while the women do everything is not only false but ridiculous.
If you got to Ghana, Nigeria or Sierra lone. Such societies, majority of the couples still conform to rigid gender roles where men are the bread winners, hunter, gatherer, and women playing only the supporting roles – i.e. making the home. Although, in said parts of the world, gender roles are obviously being gradually abolished as western civilization keeps sweeping to every part of the earth, especially among the middle class families and those in white collar professions.
Helen 153
Stephen: there are almost no hunter-gatherer societies anywhere in Africa anymore. Certainly not in the specific countries you mention. In urban settings, yes, more men are “western-style” breadwinners, but go out into the rural settings and it is a completely different picture. Yes, it is a huge job to make enough food to feed the families, and women are the primary farmworkers. That is why educational efforts for farming are targeted toward them.
Helen 154
nathan – I like that Rumi poem. Also the notion of writers, musicians, and artists being the gatekeepers of love.
Happy Person and P – good to see two other people who have experience in these parts of the world. Happy Person, if you work in microfinance in developing nations, I’m impressed!
Selena 155
To Eljem #150
The Ultimate answer to life, the universe, and everything is -42.
“The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Universe” – Douglas Adams
Happy Person 156
Helen: I work in global finance, but not specifically microfinance. I read alot about microfinance, though, because I’m thinking of making the switch. Very into diversity and the conflict issues that arise in diverse environments. That’s one of the reasons I read this blog–the gender wars are in full force on here. EMK’s tag line about learning how men think sums it up for me–though not to get a partner (because I already have one and he’s a heckofalotta cute). I’m interested in how men respond when women put forth certain ideas about their experience. General hostility is a common response, as is attacking a woman’s POV as not being informed/rational, as too emotional or strident, loud, masculine, etc.
Firms like mine are being forced to change if they want to remain competitive. The smart women and people of color are going to go to workplaces where they are respected as equals–because they can. Given the huge demographic shifts in births (whites in the minority) and marriage (singles 50% of population), it’s unlikely that companies are going to be run by white hetero breadwinners for much longer.
Guys like Nathan, with the Rumi poem, warm my heart and give me hope that the transition will be less painful for us as a society than it has to be.
Paragon 157
@ Helen.
There are complex reasons why the role of males in developing world communities are changing.
But, mainly it is because their labor roles are more sensitive to economic changes(ie. like the decline of caravans, or beasts of burden as manual labor aids).
It is not a simple question of inherent laziness, and I think any solution to an (admitted) inequity in the division of labor in certain developing world communities *must* address these demographic shifts in male labor opportunities, in ways that are both sensitive(with respect to maintaining their dominant status over women) and proactive(rather than merely looking to empower female opportunities).
Otherwise we should not act surprised when males continue to distance themselves from what they view as a (feminist) agenda designed to marginalize their status, with respect to women.
International aid that demands conformity with western gender roles, is succeeding only to alienate male participation, and is thus a doomed strategy.
Paragon 158
@ Helen
“Paragon: what would those “reciprocal values” be in west Africa? Southern Africa? Rural Asia?”
Whatever justifies continued interactions between males and females.
But, it occurs that your are assuming a free rider problem, simply by virtue of the (admitted) fact, that women tend to
shoulder a higherl burden in their daily workload.
Of course, given that women in developing communities cannot easily offload liability in supporting their
own offspring(unlike in western societies), and the fact that there *always* exists a disproportionately larger population of unmated males(without offspring) – this obvious disparity is *exactly* what we should expect(and is not a free-riding
problem by any meaningful definition).
“You know as well as we do that these game theoretic trials assume people optimize their choices and are perfectly rational actors in a complex setting.”
Rationality is *not* an assumption of evolutionary game theory(unlike classical game theory) – which is one of its
advantages.
It occurs that if had more than a superficial awareness of these concepts, you would know this already(parsing google hits will not suffice, I’m afraid).
To make a final clarification, I would like to add that since males and females tend have conflicting reproductive interests(despite that margin where they find necessary agreement), we can assume that male-female interactions are co-evolutionary, with inescapable consequences for reproductive fitness.
Thus, when these interactions are stable(minimally changing over time), we can assume an equilibrium of sorts(both males and females are contributing *something* of reciprocal evolutionary value to preserve status quo).
But, when these interactions are perturbed from stability(they are in an acute state of flux), this instability
implies that selection is operating on evolutionary change.
If these ‘changes’ correspond with a decline in fitness, then we can assume that some contributing factor of change is frustrating the reproductive interests of one or both sexes.
If we make some critical observations of western society, we will see both acute flux in male-female interactions(over a
relatively brief interval of time), as well as trends towards sub-replacement fertility(the demographic economic paradox).
From this we can infer that a measurable increase in female sexual/reproductive autonomy is hindering the reproductive interests of a disproportionate number of males(given that the female role as the rate-limiting morph naturally conflicts with the high-rate fitness optima of males) – suggesting that the ‘x-factor’ in precipitating instability, is an acute, systemic empowerment of female sexual/reproductive choice.
It is precisely what we should expect.
Eljem 159
@ Selena
Goldie 160
Hi, I’m the Anonymous from posts ##73 and 88, who complained she felt like she was sitting on a time bomb. And I’m here to tell you that, last weekend, the bomb went off. Out of the blue, he texted me as I was packing to go over to his place, like I used to do almost every weekend, and said that he needed to meet and talk about us. Upon meeting, he said he needed to see other people, as something was missing and he didn’t know what it was. Last night he followed up via email with a long list of things that had been bothering him for, apparently, a long time, about our relationship. I’m not at liberty to share the list, but I can say that it mainly consisted of minor communication issues that could’ve been worked out over a five-minute talk, if he’d decided to have one. The rest of the list, were two more serious issues, but ones I could compromise on. Except I was always being told that everything was fine and he was having a great time, and since I don’t have ESP, well I had no idea he had any problems with me! My takeaway from this is, next time I meet someone who puts a lot of stock into chemistry and feelings, even if he happens to have crazy chemistry and strong feelings for me at the moment… I’m not going to stick around. How people can make life-changing decisions based on random chemical reactions in their brain, is beyond me. I admit there needs to be some level of physical attraction, but putting chemistry above all things is a disaster waiting to happen.
I plan to take 4-6 months off dating to take stock of my own life, figure out who I am and what I want to be. I like being a team and being in a healthy LTR, but I have some personal growth to do so I can make a better choice next time. Peace out
Goldie 161
Sorry for double-posting — forgot to add — my birthday is this coming Wednesday. Granted I do not make a big deal of my birthdays, and said so to him a number of times, but still, to find yourself on the receiving end of a breakup three days before your birthday… makes me feel pretty let-down. Wish he could’ve waited a week, or done it a few weeks sooner. Very odd choice of date on his part.
Helen 162
Goldie, I’m really sorry to hear that.
What I would do in your shoes at this point is to completely cut off contact with him. No calling or emailing him to try to point out that you can work out that list of issues you describe. Just no contact, period. Let him miss you. He will figure out himself that many of those issues were trivial, and if the two of you were meant to be, he’ll contact you again.
Meanwhile, do nice things for yourself. For your birthday, why not buy something you’ve always wanted but have been denying yourself. Treat your girlfriends and children to some homebaked goods on your b-day. Let your “personal growth” include, in large portion, finding out what makes you happy.
Ruby 163
Goldie
I’m so sorry! What bad timing – maybe he just didn’t feel he could go through any birthday plans with such issues on his mind. Not a good sign to me that you dated for quite a while but didn’t see this coming. He should have discussed his feelings with you sooner. You also mentioned that neither one of you was looking to remarry anytime soon – perhaps he had a time limit on how long he planned to stick around before things got too serious.
Goldie 164
Thanks Helen. I’d originally wanted to go completely no-contact, but he looked like he wanted to talk about it, so for old times’ sake, I let him. I’m cool either way now. If I still had strong feelings, I’d definitely go for no contact. But, after seeing his list, and learning that he’d been harboring this resentment for weeks, possibly months, without telling me anything, I’ve got to say the desire to get back together is pretty much gone
For my bday, I already have concert tickets to see Beach Boys with my 16yo. Additionally, I’ve contacted a number of old friends to see how they’ve been (which I’d never had the time for while I was in the relationship) and my schedule for this week has filled up pretty fast. Looking forward to a lot of catching up with a lot of good people