Getting into a relationship: Game of Cat and Mouse

I put up a poll a couple days ago about what kind of topics people would like to hear about. Even though I know there are at times hundreds of people reading this blog daily, only four people voted. One person voted for 'random crap,' while two (presumably women) voted for 'relationships', and one voted for 'politics/economics.' No one voted for 'social issues.' But, inevitably through the random crap satire, politics, economics, and relationship topics I will address social issues in one way or another. It's all interconnected. That being said, I'm going to go with the winner of the poll today and talk about relationships. More than specific instances I'm going to talk about how the sexes see different actions, events, and behaviors. I also might wax nostalgic.

Back in the middle ages and throughout the Renaissance, and even through the Romantic 19th century, men wrote poems, sonnets, sang ballads, painted pictures, made sculptures, and went through all sorts of trouble to woo women that today would seem ridiculous if not stalkerish. With the enlightenment, women's movements, and liberal democracy, these traditions of wooing, along with chivalry have in large part been destroyed, or at least become somewhat muted.

Men are however, generally expected to take the initiative. They are the ones who are expected to ask women out. But, while some women claim this as sexist patriarchalism, most women want it. Why? Because it's a risky proposition asking someone out. The man could say no, and it could end up being an embarrassing situation. So, if you are one of those women who asks guys out, don't always expect a "yes." You've put yourself into the traditional man's role, and he, just as you do, has the same right to say, "No."

On that same vein, there is also another silly philosophy that I've noticed most supposedly "nice" women have. That is, to always say "yes" to a first date. While I think it's decent of you that you're willing to give him a chance and be cordial, sometimes you can just tell from the get-go that it's not going to work out. And, there's really nothing wrong with that. You most likely have enough discernment to make an educated decision. Don't play games and lead a guy on, even if it is "just one date," because, quite often it can become two or three, you're not interested in him at all, he is oblivious to your subtle hints, and you don't know how to get off the hook without hurting his feelings. This is where directness is most needed. So that you don't get stuck with some guy you do not care for, and so that he does not end up getting too emotionally invested, all the while wasting his time, heart beats, and money, end it soon. Learn to say "No." It is much more compassionate and humane to nip it in the bud than let it drag on. It's better for everyone. So, in a nutshell, transparency is good. You're not being any nicer trying to let someone down softly. Rip the band-aid off the wound in one fallow swoop. 

The next little bit I'm going to mention is communication. This is the main reason men and women have so much trouble with relationships and interaction. As I said before, directness is key. While some men are great with subtleties, hints, and nuanced speech, most are not. Both sexes see what they want to see, but men even more so. Don't expect a guy to be a mind reader. He probably cannot even read his own mind, much less yours. Be explicit in your communication. If a guy holds your hand, he's being pretty explicit. If you pull your hand away, he should get it. However, if you aren't into him and do nothing you are giving consent. Inaction is consent to most men. Few get the whole passive-aggressive/ambivalent female response.

Ok, I don't want to beat that issue into the mud. Just be clear. Quite often it's a power struggle, and men and women play games with one another. The man is interested, the women doesn't know if she's interested (or at least claims not to know) and so the man is not straight forward as in days of yore (with the poems, sonnets, and ballads) and plays the woman's game of subtleties as best he can. His rationale is, "If I put all my cards on the table, she's going to shove them in my face." So he either plays no cards or one card. Unfortunately, sometimes women can be just as thick as men, and think a guy is not into them because he hasn't beat her over the head with his intentions. So what happens is, because he is cautious not to play his whole hand, she thinks he's not interested and so does not reciprocate at all. Then, seeing she's not reciprocating, he moves on, because she already has in his mind. So both sides lose. All of this because of miscommunication. Many might say, "Well he should have been more obvious." But how obvious? If he were too brash she'd lose interest and think he was a stalker instead of a charming, clever, romancer. So we need to be more clear, but not too clear? The line is fuzzy. Seems like a confusing game of cat and mouse (and I honestly have no idea which side is the cat and which is the mouse).

There is no easy answer. Ideally a guy would take a girl out a couple times, she'd give him the right signals and they'd both say and do the right things and get into a relationship. But life is not cut and dry. People zig and zag. One day you might be into her, but she's not into you. Then a couple months up the road the situation is in the reverse. For anything to work, the time has to be right for both people. You both have to be zigging together or zagging together. There's no use in pushing for something that's not there, just like there is not a whole lot of point to hoping for something that's not there (I'm not saying don't hope, I'm just saying don't put all your eggs in one basket, be hopeful in general, not in particular; be opportunistic).

One day the cat and mouse will lie down together (although in this picture it's a rat)

I'm sorry breakfast

Breakfast. I remember you. We had some great times together. I would saunter from my early morning sleep-induced zombie coma to you at the table. We would sit and stare at one another. You would smell good and I would just grumble and glare. You were hot and I was disheveled. But we got along so well. You awoke me to a bright new day, and I started to open my swollen eyelids and realize I was still alive. Thank you breakfast.

But now we have become less intimate. Sometimes I see you, other times I don't. I don't help you exploit chickens anymore. I help you exploit cows and grains, and occasionally banana trees. 

But it's all business now. I don't stare at the wall and back at you with my usual dazed confusion. I'm quick and methodical. Uncaring. I don't spend as much time with you because you bore me. You are a chore. You're a simpleton now. We can't even carry on a decent conversation. I'm sorry breakfast.

Peter Pan Complex

Just recently it was discovered in a suburb of London that Peter Pan is in fact real. He did not get married, does not actually have a family, and the Hook movie was a nice idea, but completely false. Peter Pan is still a 12 year old boy who wears green tights and a Robin Hood attire. He was spotted last tuesday evening by a resident at 54 Kensington Street, in (name not disclosed), just outside of London. Apparently a large 'firefly' was described as having attached itself to his leg or buttocks and was tussling with him mid-air. At first, the resident said that she thought it was a ghost, but then, to her relief, she recognized him as Peter Pan.

He was said by the resident to have endorsed the lifestyle position much maligned by a majority of Christians. While watching the cheerful and infamous character, she heard him say, "Hey wench! Eat drink and be merry! Here's some pixy dust!" Thinking it was a drug reference, and having had some difficulties of her own with local law enforcement, the resident declined and said, "Grow up!" Peter Pan guffawed and flew away (supposedly to Neverneverland).

However, since news of the encounter has spread there has been a new revolutionary movement sweeping through this suburb of London. Most people tend to get excessively drunk, smashed, or otherwise incapacitated and then proceed to jump off of park benches, trees, roofs, and statues. When they are accosted by police, they generally say, "I don't want to grow up." Many have been caught making lewd gestures in public, digging holes in the middle of parks for 'buried treasure,' and having an increasingly difficult time settling down in meaningful relationships or careers. But surprisingly few have been held on formal charges, and many of the local police force have joined in the merriment.

The Provo Divide

In the town of Provo there is a great divide.

I have spoken of it on many occasions with many friends. In Provo, and especially around Brigham Young University, there are a lot of young, college-aged types who are looking for a good education, maybe some work, and a good time. Rarely, do they get all three. And if they do, they are the lucky ones.

As a college town, you might expect there to be a lot of students. This is true. But BYU is not the only school here. There is UVSC (Soon to be UVU), along with many beauty schools and other schools I've never heard of. So, the pond is stocked full of tons of fish. You might think, "Well that's good. If you have lots of fish, you have a lot more options." True. But everyone thinks that way and it creates a mindset that is detrimental to anyone ever getting anywhere in life (socially speaking). With so many options girls and guys around here tend to be either extremely non-committal, or way too committal. The first mindset happens because the first group sees so many options, they become fickle, picky, stupid, and like playing games and become worthless flakes, and the second mindset happens because once the other group finds someone, they cling to them for dear life out of insecurity of the system regardless if the person is an absolute monstrosity. So if that's all we've got, it leads me to wonder, what about the middle? Are you telling me (or am I telling myself) that people either play the field or get married after 6 weeks? Yes. The middle is nearly non-existent.

And, that middle has the only people with any common sense. This middle believes that you can date someone to get to know them and see if something more is there without thinking of long-term all the time. The middle believes that you should date whoever you want, but that being on two dates together does not make you a couple. The middle dates for the sake of dating. And, learns about people, relationships, and what they want out of life in a normal way. They are the balance. But, where are they? Well they have fallen into the Provo divide. Into the deep chasm that is or was the normal way to interact. I am one of them. I am not super-committal (I'm not looking to get married after a couple days or weeks of knowing someone), and I'm not a flake (I don't get interested in one girl on one day and then totally psych myself out, convince myself she's ugly, stupid or uninterested and move on to my back log of other potentials). So where do I fit here? That's a good question. Perhaps I just need to go back to the real world (like any place outside of Utah).