To Be Me, or Not To Be Me

Two schools of thought:

A. She should take me as I am. And like it.

B. What can I do to get and keep her interest?

Neither works in isolation. Any coupling will involve both of us modifying our behaviour, some more than others. Imagine two partially inflated balloons fitting into a chest not quite large enough for the two of them. That’s the mental picture to keep in mind. We’ll need to shift, change emphasis and here’s the word….accommodate the other.

Both of us need to do so. For a successful coupling, that is, my assumption if not yours.

In looking at A. and B. above, do you think is says more about the person concerned or his or her romantic interest? If I choose someone whom I want to accept me totally as I am, is that likely to work out well?

And if I choose someone for whom I will change as required, will that work out?

Down the Rabbit Hole

Hearts RabbitWhen Alice looks into the mirror, does she see herself?

Or does she see the bizarre world she’s about to explore?

Perhaps the view changes with the day. Or with the time of her cycle. Or if she’s in company or not. Or if the car’s low on petrol.

Being a male with an interest in an Alice is our own version of going through a looking-glass. To most of we guys, the world of women is odd. Things change quickly. What worked yesterday doesn’t work today. Clarity garnered in similar circumstances earlier turns to misunderstanding the next time.

When we do find a moment of mutual meshing it never seems to last. Such a balance is fragile, rapidly dissipated and replaced by the eternal riddle…what did I do wrong?

At a certain point, males discover that we are a relatively fixed point in space-time, and women are an energy field. (Time for some hard physics in the coupling sphere, don’t you think?)

Bless You

Etiquette determines that in polite company one avoid talk of religion, sex and politics.

How one is supposed to have an enlightened and lively conversation without one or more of these topics escapes me. Art, I guess would be one alternative. Sports if you’re so inclined. Books if anyone read them.

Forget the etiquette and dig in, I say, because the verboten triumverate always get someone’s blood up, which leads to disagreement, which begets a real conversation where people actually defend what they believe. Which is why you should introduce these topics early into your dating.

I had a conversation with a woman friend this weekend, the main point of which was why a four-date dater had dumped her. She claimed it was over his embarrassment at farting in front of her, but that didn’t ring true to me. Delving a little deeper, the focus sharpened; they were politically polar opposites. My friend is a socialist, her date a capitalist. Sorry, but that just won’t work.

My analogy was this: if you’re looking towards building some kind of house together, you need to share construction of the foundation. Two different foundations that aren’t linked create two houses. Yes, they might be proximate, but that’s friendship or companionship, not a marriage or proxy thereof. Sharing solid – if abstract – understanding of how the universe works, what’s right and wrong, and through what prism to view life is critical to creating a stable union.

Exceptions exist, of course. My friend invoked James Carville and Mary Matalin, but I pointed out that

1. this is a very high profile example of precisely one (1) couple, and

2. they are joined more by being part of the media religion than their differences separate them.

In general, I suggest that the easiest path to a happy future is to find someone who shares your meta beliefs – or be prepared to live in a hurricane at least part of the time.