Been a few weeks since we've moved in & I think we're off to a good start--adjustments, adjustments, alterations, detours & the like--kinda like knitting (my sis would love this)sometimes you gotta rip it out & start again. This is not easy & I think I've said this a few times before--but my philosophy is this: Nothing in Life is worthwhile if it comes too easy--you appreciate those things that you work hard to achieve. I get the impression that both of us want that--in fact, beside the whole love aspect, the fact that we are both committed to figuring all of this out despite the road blocks, frustrations, adjustments, & alterations, is a pretty strong message to the world: We are in it for the duration even if sometimes it don't exactly look like it. And I'm sure that we sometimes scare the bejeezes outta our kiddos cuz' all of 'em are most certainly gun shy after divorce--even if it was 7 years ago in the case of my BS (Biological Son). We don't see eye to eye on some things & rather than keep it all in & not communicate & just build resentment, we let it out (or I do). Which brings me to Cookie Monster. http://www.slate.com/articles/life/low_concept/2012/06/what_kind_of_muppet_are_you_chaos_or_order_.html
I just read a wonderful little article in Slate that talks about whether you are a "Chaos Muppet" or an "Order Muppet". This article by Dhalia Lithwick is priceless. So if you are a chaos muppet (think Cookie Monster, Ernie, Grover, Oscar, et al.) then you live your life a little bit like "seat of the pants" philosophy. Yeah, an emotional, with the tags hanging out whirlwind. One example in the article talks about your spice cabinet. Which is so freakin' funny to me because as we set up house (and anyone who knows me knows how I LOVE to cook & have a million spices), one of our little issues is, in fact, the spice cabinet. In the article Lithwick talks about organization & alphabetizing of the spices--if you just throw 'em in there then chances are you are a chaos muppet. Hmmmm....guess that explains a lot. I think a Chaos Muppet's arguing with the SO technique is bombastic rather than staid. But I will do things for cookies...
An "Order Muppet" as you might guess, thrives on regimentation, & structure. They are "...averse to surprises and may
sport monstrously large eyebrows. They sometimes resent the
responsibility of the world weighing on their felt shoulders, (ah, weltschmerz)but they
secretly revel in the knowledge that they keep the show running. Your first grade teacher was probably an Order Muppet." Think Bert, Scooter, & Kermit for good examples. One question Xing Fu had for me was how did I want to arrange my spices? My response was just to throw them in there--loosely organized around which ones I used more often. In his old condo, Xing Fu had a spice rack with all of the spices neatly labeled. "Order Muppet" anyone? And arguing stye is definitely more stoic than I. But, the key to success is the following: " It’s simply the case that the key to a happy marriage, a
well-functioning family, and a productive place of work lies in
carefully calibrating the ratio of Chaos Muppets to Order Muppets within
any closed system." So, there you have it folks--in the perfect sense of opposites attract. We just need to calibrate our relationship & our blended family into the best blend of Muppet Typology and from there it's a piece of cake...er, cookie.
Baltimore single mom's attempts at navigating the deep & confusing relationship abyss--now with added "stepmom duties" (with some sailing thrown in for good measure)
Showing posts with label Slate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Slate. Show all posts
Monday, June 11, 2012
Friday, January 28, 2011
50 First Duds
A while ago I used to write about my dating experiences--usually the 50 first duds, um, dates & my impatience about meeting "the one." Times have certainly changed since then & I am so happy to be with Xing Fu because I know how hard it is out there as a single 40-something mom trying to find a partner, friend, lover, non-cheater, hard-worker, etc., etc. But I also say that one's conduct (woman) & personal outlook about finding that person, has an awful lot to do with the success. I can say this because I've been there, done that. I'm not trying to be the old, all-knowing sage of dating, but I think I do have some thoughts worth sharing on the topic after having the various experiences that I have had--anyone out there remember the Bull? Yeah? Well, that's where I'll start...
We broke up & it was ugly. This was the epitome of a liar & a cheater--reference back to the fact that he had me in Baltimore & another woman in DC. Yup, classic bad man behavior. OK, so for a while I wrote on this blog how hurt I was & how horrible his behavior was, and it was to be sure. But how did I deal with it? Yeah, I vented about it, I cried, called my BFFs, & started back on the dating websites (waaaay too early) but I did NOT, under ANY circumstances, stalk, harass or talk to the Bull ever again. It so happened that the other woman & I had several conversations & emails back & forth, & ultimately I believe she forgave him (stoopid woman, but I understand) & they ended up together. And that hurt. A lot. But as I said, I understand because it is very hard for a single mom in her 40s to find a decent guy. Reference to the article from Slate http://boyfriendplease-sailorgrl.blogspot.com/2010/11/freaks-geeks-and-economists-from-slate.html that I posted in November..about the supply & demand of dating in your 40s http://boyfriendplease-sailorgrl.blogspot.com/2010/11/supply-and-demand.html. But, and I'm being deliberately redundant, even after she & I talked, I NEVER, EVER, contacted the Bull. I didn't look him up on facebook, I blocked his online dating profiles on Ok Cupid & other sites, & I didn't harass his DC chick. I was "done, done"(to use the engineering vernacular), even as hurt as I was. And I never gave up hope that he'd be out there--hence the positive outlook. I read many books & articles (many of which I posted about here), & I got back out there. But I also made a very deliberate decision about getting back out there.
Back on the dating sites--POF (Plenty Of Fish), Ok Cupid, Yahoo, Match, eHarmony--at one point I'm sure I had a profile on all of them & I went out on a lot of dates. And sometimes the guys were cool--Amsterdam anyone? And I did ignore Lori Gottlieb's advice--don't you do it! Because ultimately she has a very good point (points). But as I was out online, I was very specific about going about this "finding the one" in another & ultimately the most successful way. I've written about it--do what you love. Go out & get active--no passivity in "waiting for the one" to find you on POF. I'm sure I read this advice somewhere in my travels but I certainly took it to heart. I went sailing--a lot. I got active & for that first summer I spent all of the after-race parties as a single person, but I made friends & I had a blast. And I was NOT at home waiting. And you know the rest of this fairytale story--I have met the most wonderful man who loves me for me (and sails--a lot). I most definitely believe whole-heartedly that my conduct & attitude have everything to do with this success. Karma, karma, karma.
So why am writing about all of this now? I was inspired by a woman of my acquaintance who is struggling to let go & truthfully is not going about it very gracefully. I believe she deserves better but she will never find it until she has a significant paradigm shift. I hate to say this but she will NEVER, EVER find someone worthy of her unless she stops harassing her ex & his new girlfriend (no matter how skanky she thinks the new one is), and adopts an attitude of gratitude. No, I'm not trying to be cliched here, but it must be all cup half full & this litany of hate ain't winning her points in the Karmic Bank & Trust. There has been a ton of support thrown her way, very good that she has friends who care, but throughout the drama, there were some folk who told her over & over to get over the guy. Let it go--quit giving the guy her power....and they are right. At a certain point, about a month or two after my break-up with the Bull, I stopped referring to him so much & began writing more about my 50 first duds, and sailing...because I was out there doing what I loved & not perseverating on a loser. So to this woman who deserves better, I beseech you to go out & live your life (don't worry about being happy with yourself--no one ever is, but make friends with yourself instead) & conduct yourself with grace--this bitterness makes you ugly & no guy wants that!
"Would you stop feeling sorry for yourself? It's bad for your complexion!" --from Sixteen Candles.
We broke up & it was ugly. This was the epitome of a liar & a cheater--reference back to the fact that he had me in Baltimore & another woman in DC. Yup, classic bad man behavior. OK, so for a while I wrote on this blog how hurt I was & how horrible his behavior was, and it was to be sure. But how did I deal with it? Yeah, I vented about it, I cried, called my BFFs, & started back on the dating websites (waaaay too early) but I did NOT, under ANY circumstances, stalk, harass or talk to the Bull ever again. It so happened that the other woman & I had several conversations & emails back & forth, & ultimately I believe she forgave him (stoopid woman, but I understand) & they ended up together. And that hurt. A lot. But as I said, I understand because it is very hard for a single mom in her 40s to find a decent guy. Reference to the article from Slate http://boyfriendplease-sailorgrl.blogspot.com/2010/11/freaks-geeks-and-economists-from-slate.html that I posted in November..about the supply & demand of dating in your 40s http://boyfriendplease-sailorgrl.blogspot.com/2010/11/supply-and-demand.html. But, and I'm being deliberately redundant, even after she & I talked, I NEVER, EVER, contacted the Bull. I didn't look him up on facebook, I blocked his online dating profiles on Ok Cupid & other sites, & I didn't harass his DC chick. I was "done, done"(to use the engineering vernacular), even as hurt as I was. And I never gave up hope that he'd be out there--hence the positive outlook. I read many books & articles (many of which I posted about here), & I got back out there. But I also made a very deliberate decision about getting back out there.
Back on the dating sites--POF (Plenty Of Fish), Ok Cupid, Yahoo, Match, eHarmony--at one point I'm sure I had a profile on all of them & I went out on a lot of dates. And sometimes the guys were cool--Amsterdam anyone? And I did ignore Lori Gottlieb's advice--don't you do it! Because ultimately she has a very good point (points). But as I was out online, I was very specific about going about this "finding the one" in another & ultimately the most successful way. I've written about it--do what you love. Go out & get active--no passivity in "waiting for the one" to find you on POF. I'm sure I read this advice somewhere in my travels but I certainly took it to heart. I went sailing--a lot. I got active & for that first summer I spent all of the after-race parties as a single person, but I made friends & I had a blast. And I was NOT at home waiting. And you know the rest of this fairytale story--I have met the most wonderful man who loves me for me (and sails--a lot). I most definitely believe whole-heartedly that my conduct & attitude have everything to do with this success. Karma, karma, karma.
So why am writing about all of this now? I was inspired by a woman of my acquaintance who is struggling to let go & truthfully is not going about it very gracefully. I believe she deserves better but she will never find it until she has a significant paradigm shift. I hate to say this but she will NEVER, EVER find someone worthy of her unless she stops harassing her ex & his new girlfriend (no matter how skanky she thinks the new one is), and adopts an attitude of gratitude. No, I'm not trying to be cliched here, but it must be all cup half full & this litany of hate ain't winning her points in the Karmic Bank & Trust. There has been a ton of support thrown her way, very good that she has friends who care, but throughout the drama, there were some folk who told her over & over to get over the guy. Let it go--quit giving the guy her power....and they are right. At a certain point, about a month or two after my break-up with the Bull, I stopped referring to him so much & began writing more about my 50 first duds, and sailing...because I was out there doing what I loved & not perseverating on a loser. So to this woman who deserves better, I beseech you to go out & live your life (don't worry about being happy with yourself--no one ever is, but make friends with yourself instead) & conduct yourself with grace--this bitterness makes you ugly & no guy wants that!
"Would you stop feeling sorry for yourself? It's bad for your complexion!" --from Sixteen Candles.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Freaks, Geeks, and Economists--from Slate
Found this article on Slate & found it quite interesting. I was thinking about the implications of this study on men & women in their 40's. I also began thinking about the findings and what Lori Gottlieb had to say about Mr. Good Enough. If there is a shortage of eligible men in my age bracket, according to the study, it would appear as though women would lower their expectations of men (cheating, and other behaviors, e.g.) in order to find a match. That thought is echoed in many places, I believe even in Sex & The City. "And, as you move from age box to age box and the contestants get fewer and fewer, are your chances of finding your soulmate less and less?" Are soulmates a reality, or a torture device?" So, depending on the population ratios of male to female, in my age bracket it just appears that we women get the short of the stick & are willing to make compromises as a result. Wow. That's a tough pill to swallow.
I am still reading the original study--there's more to this paper than just the shortages, but that was the first thing that jumped out at me--and yes, economics does play a role here--supply & demand for sure!
I am still reading the original study--there's more to this paper than just the shortages, but that was the first thing that jumped out at me--and yes, economics does play a role here--supply & demand for sure!
Freaks, Geeks, and Economists
A study confirms every suspicion you ever had about high-school dating.
By Annie Lowrey
Posted Monday, Nov. 15, 2010, at 3:42 PM ET
In the Darwinian world of high-school dating, freshman girls and senior boys have the highest chances of successfully partnering up. Senior girls (too picky!) and freshman boys (pond scum!) have the least.
These are truisms known to anyone who has watched 10 minutes of a teen movie or spent 10 minutes in a high school cafeteria. Now, however, social scientists have examined them exhaustively and empirically. And they have found that for the most part, they're accurate. So are some other old prom-era chestnuts: Teen boys are primarily—obsessively?—interested in sex, whereas girls, no matter how boy-crazy, tend to focus on relationships. Young men frequently fib about their sexual experience, whereas young women tend to be more truthful. Once a student has sex, it becomes less of an issue in future relationships.
A recently released paper—called "Terms of Endearment," but don't hold its too-cute title against it—looked at how and when high-school students choose mates and their preferences when searching for a partner. Economists Peter Arcidiacono and Marjorie McElroy of Duke and Andrew Beauchamp of Boston College examined an enormous trove of data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, more commonly known as Add Health. The survey first queried adolescents, from seventh graders to high-school seniors, during the 1994-1995 school year and has followed up with them periodically.
The poll asked a broad range of questions about health and behavior—and the data set has become the basis of dozens of famed medical, sociological, and economic studies. (For instance, James Fowler of UC-San Diego recently used data from Add Health to find that there might be a genetic foundation for an individual's political beliefs.) For their paper, Arcidiacono, McElroy, and Beauchamp focused on the dating and sex lives of high schoolers—a subject much-analyzed by magazine editors and romantic-comedy screenwriters, but less familiar to social scientists.
What the researchers looked for is called, in academic-speak, "matching": the likelihood and factors that lead to any individual partnering up. (They looked only at opposite-sex relationships within the same school.) That's uncommon: Most academic studies on marriage and partner-matching use a technique called "assortative mating," which looks at pre-existing couples and defines the characteristics they do and do not have in common. (Humans tend to partner with mates that look and act like them. In real terms, that means couples with the same socioeconomic, racial, and religious background are common. In high-school terms, that means math nerds date math nerds, though members of the debate team may also qualify.)
Arcidiacono, McElroy, and Beauchamp used a "two-sided matching model," which looks at what an individual says he or she seeks in a partner as well as what he or she ends up getting. The idea is that men and women—jocks and dorks, freshman and seniors—base their search not only on the characteristics of their chosen partner, but also the expected terms of the relationship. For 30-year-olds, that might mean predicating a relationship on willingness to marry or have kids. For high schoolers, that might mean basing a relationship on, well, the bases.
Arcidiacono notes that there's a treasure trove of statistical data on the dating preferences, rather than pairings, of adults, due to dating sites like Match.com. Relatively little such data exists for teenagers, who mostly work the old-fashioned meet-someone-in-homeroom way. But in examining the Add Health data, he and his colleagues found one classic economic tenet driving the byzantine high-school dating market: Scarcity determines value. Among freshman boys, what's rare, and therefore valuable, are freshman girls willing to have a relationship and, even better, willing to have sex. Among senior girls, what's valuable and scarce are boys willing to have a relationship without having sex.
The researchers open the paper by citing a New York Times article on dating at the University of North Carolina, where for every three women there are only two men. One coed argues that the gender imbalance has engendered a culture where men routinely cheat on their female partners. "That's a thing that girls let slide, because you have to," the student explains. "If you don't let it slide, you don't have a boyfriend." Dating, in other words, is a market like any other, and market power is determined by the abundance of resources.
A tamer version of that observation is borne out in the economists' work among high schoolers. Unsurprisingly, the majority of high school boys want to have sex (though only 47.6 percent of freshmen boys do). Unsurprisingly, the majority of high school girls do not (though 50.1 percent of senior girls do). Over the course of four years, the power shifts from the freshman girls who don't want to have sex to the senior boys who do.
The conclusion? Though high-school girls don't really want to have sex, many more of them end up doing so in order to "match" with a high-school boy. For them, a relationship at some point becomes more important than purity. Because of that phenomenon, in schools with more boys than girls, the girls hold more cards and have less sex. Where there are more girls, the male preference for sex tends to win out.
Of course, all this raises a question that has long bedeviled scores of Y.A. novelists, not to mention millions of teenagers: In high school, how exactly does one define a "relationship"? Rather sweetly, the Add Health study considers two a pair when they hold hands, kiss, and say "I love you." (It seems to me this knocks most high-school relationships out of consideration, but the criteria are the criteria.) And when does that happen? Boys and girls in the same grade account for about 42 percent of relationships, while older boys dating younger girls make up 40 percent of high-school relationships, and older girls dating younger boys make up 18 percent.
And who does the high-school dating system disadvantage most, statistically? Senior girls, at least according to the skew between stated sexual preferences and actual sexual activity. Though that will undoubtedly come as cold comfort to those legions of lonely 14-year-old boys.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Just Friends--Part II
Which brings us to Xing Fu. We were also friends first and for quite some time. That is not to say that my initial attraction to him wasn't there--it was--I asked about him soon after I met him. But, because he was married, & I have a rule--NO MARRIED MEN, there was no way anything was going to happen & therefore I was perfectly happy to be platonic sailing friends. But certainly I have to admit that the sex thing, or at least the attraction thing, was there to even initiate a desire to be friends--so that is of note.
An aside, Xing Fu had also been friends with another female sailing friend & had shared a room with her during a regatta weekend one year. Purely platonic & was never cause for alarm as both of them were "off the market" as well. And accordingly, not everyone is a slave to their baser instincts anyway. On Slate there is reference to a Dear Prudence letter with a similar set of circumstances. Essentially, a woman writes in that her boyfriend & his platonic female friend are going share a hotel room during a conference. Problem was, the writer didn't want that to happen because she suspected a little hanky-panky might happen. People just suspect that something will happen even if there's nothing to fear--kinda sucks because it's not always about that. Referenced here: scroll down to see the letter
http://www.slate.com/id/2254228/Anyway, I digress. With regard to Xing Fu, I would have been perfectly happy to continue as was--we certainly had much in common to be "cross-sex" friends & I was happy with that, even if I did wonder as time went on & he was a perfect gentleman in every way. But, as circumstances changed, so did our platonic friendship--so there it is...just like in Hollywood. And this just friends thingy--well, I'm on the fence there.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Just Friends?
Been doing some research recently on the man-woman friends thing--always been intrigued by it so recently a mini-series on Slate Magazine (Strictly Platonic http://www.slate.com/id/2268709/) piqued my interest. The author, Juliet Lapidos, explores modern "cross-sex" friendships & discusses the history of why this type of relationship is a recent development. Which makes complete sense--historically men & women have been very segregated until quite recently--the structure of roles, society, etc.--when was there an opportunity for men & women to be "just friends"? She also talks about how Hollywood has certainly influenced our perceptions of friendship with the opposite sex. The classic "When Harry Met Sally" comes to mind--and the statement that Harry makes,"Men & women can't be friends because the sex part always gets in the way." So what do I believe? Does the sex part always get in the way? I think that yes, perhaps it does, in some way, but it doesn't always play out that way in the friendship. It just depends. So here are my thoughts:
I have a male friend that I've talked about--Zen Cyclist. He's like my brother & like part of the article by Lapidos, we talk about everything & I can get a really good impartial male perspective:
"But when men and women start hanging around each other platonically, they meet somewhere in the middle in terms of emotional exchange. Research shows that cross-sex friendships are more emotive than male-male relationships and less emotive than female-female ones. In my own survey of nearly 600 Slate readers, I heard from men who said that what they like about their cross-sex friendships is the ability to share without fear of judgment, and from women who said they valued the opportunity to watch sports, for example, without having to pick apart their feelings."
I totally agree with this--we hang out, talk about our various relationship stuff, & chill--like guys. But this was only after we got the sex stuff out of the way. At one point we decided to try it out--I guess that there was enough sexual tension at the time between us to give it a go & we were both in between relationships--bleh! It was like kissing my brother! And we both felt like it was like kissing a sibling so neither of us had any unrequited issues. That is one example of this platonic relationship between sexes & yes, there was the sex thing at some point...
And we are great friends now with no sexual tension whatsoever--in my humble opinion, perhaps sex does play a role but you can get beyond it in some cases...
And we are great friends now with no sexual tension whatsoever--in my humble opinion, perhaps sex does play a role but you can get beyond it in some cases...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




