None of us think of relationships this way, but the courtesy of allowing room for the other to be who they are forms a lifelong framework, if we so choose.
What does “allowing room” mean?
Well, Hortense, room equates to latitude and understanding. Within the boundaries of law, morality, etiquette and goodwill, women should allow men to be men, and men should allow women to be women. Observing our specific mate’s version of malehood or femalehood is part of learning about them.
What does ” (being) who they are” mean?
Being who they are is the characteristic and integral behavior of each sex. Women and men are different, and understanding them from the perspective of the other can be difficult, and, in extreme cases, fatal for a relationship. Finding a way to rejoice in the differences and to be at one with our opposite is finding peace with who our mate is.
Acceptance; finding a way to want what is mostly for the good is a fine way to progress through life with someone.
A female friend, a married woman, tries to set me up on dates. That’s very nice of her, and I’m both grateful and flattered she thinks enough of me to, in essence, stamp me with her brand.
It’s a point often forgotten in the sweaty melee of finding someone. Emotions and hormones drive much of this frantic activity, such that noticing the implied endorsements and possible alliances is often overlooked. We are tribal, and the greatest gift a tribe can extend is an offer of membership.
Because I enjoy observing these rites of mateship, I’m consistently flummoxed by the mismatch of action and intention we can all demonstrate in this area. For instance, with the latest invitation from my friend, I wonder why the lady in question doesn’t contact me, and ask me out on a date. If she’s as interested as my friend claims, would she not risk it?
The number of men needed to keep the species going is around 125. Once that requirement is satisfied, what’s the point of the rest of them?
Are men on the way to virtual redundancy? Do women now overlook our part in their lives? Kregg and I toss around the case for men.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Number one on my list of prospective mates to avoid is anyone with any kind of chronic or recurring mental illness.
Sadly, this counts out a lot of women, but counting out a lot of women is the idea of such a list. Mental disorders are rife, and, from what I understand, wholly under-diagnosed. Even if that’s not true, we rarely think of not dating such people for precisely that reason, because we figure that therapy or drugs will mitigate any problems. We overlook this stuff on the way to the bedroom.
I had coffee this morning with a women who is dating (read: shacking up with) a guy who is a depressive. We’re not talking someone who is maudlin or down a lot. He’s capital D Depressed for much of the time.
She is clearly having second thoughts about this dude. As m’colleague Kregg repeatedly says, women are attracted to men with ambition and voice; a man continually in tears living on the couch doesn’t have much of either.
The question I could see bugging her is just why she’s involved with a guy who is failing to live up to her expectations. The best she could come up with was that he “…helps changing the sheets, oh, and does some work around the yard”.
Comforting someone who sobs themselves to sleep might fulfill some need you have, but that’s not a need you should satisfy. There are other ways. We’d all like to help that person, but attempts to do so for misguided ideas of “love” or “being there” are foolish and create two people falling down a well.
Sometimes saving ourselves from mistakes is the best possible outcome.
The middle ages must have been a boom time for Home Depot and Lowes. Royalty of every rank built castles; castles with strong walls, moats and general defence in mind.
If you were a sufficiently wealthy royal, you’d join with your king or queen and they would find castles of other royals – loyal to other kings or queens – that he or she figured were vulnerable. Or had in some way interfered with their estates or bruised their knee or something.
The point is that alliances were constantly shifting. Intrigue and grasping for power was the way they operated, the drive that kept those with the resources motivated.
Being a royal subject anchored a lot of everyday folk. Allegiance wasn’t lightly undertaken, and often the cost was high. Fighting for the perceived common aim formed the backbone of many lives, particularly the men.
This might come as a surprise to women, but men still want to ally themselves, and with one special woman…one they consider to be special. Men are commonly thought to be flighty when it comes to loyalty, but evidence is mounting (if you’ll pardon the expression) that this is not an accurate characterization. We want to be an equal and different half in an equal relationship, but the whole idea appears to be slipping away from us. We’re under siege, and we’re not quite sure why, nor what happened.
Yes, men must be admirable to be admired, but that effort is only worth the sacrifice if we’re admired by someone we think will be there for us.