I think I have mentioned before that my depression is worse at night than it is during the day. It was certainly worse last night.
I'm not taking back what I said. I do believe that in our culture, romance and the emotions that go with it are more properly the domain of the bold and the beautiful, and not so much old lumpy dudes like me. I feel silly and embarrassed having to cope with these feelings. I feel like I am behaving inappropriately.
Browsing through match.com, I found hardly anyone that looked like someone I could get along with. I have seriously marginalized myself.
But I wouldn't change that. I am mostly comfortable being who I am. I wouldn't sit through a season of OU games to please any of the large number of women who listed OU football as part of their profile. I wouldn't buy a Harley Davidson to please any of the two or three women who included, 'must have motorcycle' as part of their profile. And I'm certainly not changing my religion to accommodate the overwhelming majority of women who want a Jesus-y boyfriend.
But I came across one woman whose profile certainly intrigued me. It was almost what I would have written myself if I could write a prospective date's profile. And she was about my age. So, I sent her an email, outlining all our similar interests - art, philosophy, quiet evenings. We even go to the same coffee shop. I even pointed out that our interests are so closely aligned, we probably have mutual friends. I suggested we meet for coffee.
But... she's really attractive. Not an Aunt Bee type at all.
She didn't answer.
In retrospect, it occurs to me that she may already know me, even though I don't know her. If she knows me, she knows me by reputation, which means what she knows is, 'weird, dumpy-looking, boring, depressed nose spray addict.' (That last part is not true, by the way.)
I'll tell ya this about match.com. When you put what you think is your absolute best foot forward, and you are greeted with absolute and utter indifference, it's kind of a letdown. Even to someone approaching it with expectations as low as mine. Winks ignored, emails ignored... it's pretty much what I expected, but even so, it's hard on the ego.
Which, from a zen perspective, is exactly what I deserve for having an ego.
2 comments:
This is going to be a long (Long!) comment, 'cause it's reacting to several prior posts.
First, the Aunt Bea thing. Evolution takes a long time and there hasn't been much of it respecting humans in the past 150,000 years. Women are hard wired to be picky about mates because having a baby is a long, drawn out process and kids must be fed. They can't help that they prefer good providers with committment because they are hard wired that way. Men have a different DNA survival strategy: impregnate as many fertile women as possible. Note I say FERTILE women. Our little froggy brain and our slightly larger mammal brain make instant assessments when it comes to women and it's all about fertility. Skin tone good? We want healthy. Same with muscle tone and hair. In hunt/gather society, women are only big bellied in scarcity economies if they are preggers or so malnurished they are near death. Thus, we don't want fatties, no matter how nice they are. In other words, you are hard wired to want ethereal hippie chick and not Aunt Bea for reasons that go back 3 million years and fat chicks can whine about it all they want, that's just the deal. We will look at all of the young girls no matter who we're with and no matter how much we like them. In this, nature will trump nurture and anyone who can't understand it, SOL.
Next, about relationship longing. It's also a DNA thing. Humans are not loners as a species. We are tribal and social. You don't have to like it or understand it, but there it is, reality BOOM!.
So, I get why you like ethereal hippie chick and why you want a relationship. However, I think you make one essential error.
Your sexual preferences do not a relationship make. In my experience, a relationship has three equal parts: sexual attraction, emotional fulfillment and intellectual challenge. Both partners must supply all three to the other. If you by chance actually acquired ethereal hippie chick and the sex was FABULOUS, the relationship might still fail. Especially with the MCARP I know, a relationship with a cold dummie wouldn't last long, even if she invented a new kind of blow job especially for you.
Perhaps it would be helpful for you to look at what you have to offer on all three fronts and then think about what women would want that instead of starting with what you want in a woman.
Caveat: I know nothing about successful relationships and my personal history provides abundant evidence of same.
Blogblah
I wanted to follow up the previous comment because it was truncated by other things in my life.
I've done a little calculation for myself that applies to MCARP that is germane to this discussion.
Based on the assumption that a relationship has three parts (sexual, emotional and intellectual), let's do a little math.
MCARP is clearly in the top tranche intellectually. Let's say there's a broad range of those capable of intellectually stimulating him, but that only gives us a choice of the top 10% of the population. Of those, only roughly 5% will be female, MCARP's sexual orientation.
However, of that 5%, MCARP's age range is 40-60 (roughly), so that only leaves us with 2.5% and of those, about half will be married, gay or asexual, so his pool is reduced to 1.25% of the population.
Then, we've got to adjust for serious social maladies like mental illness, addiction and serious physical limitations, so we pare down again to 1.13%.
Population of U.S. = 330,000,000 X .0113 = 3,729,000. Population of Oklahoma City metro area = 1,000,000 X .0113 = 11,300.
Again we plug in a preference and disqualify the morbidly obese -- not women overweight, but women clinically morbid obese -- and in the OKC area, that's 1/3 of the population, reducing our 11,300 to 7,500.
Up to this point, I've made reasonably educated rough estimates of population figures and now it's time for what numbers folks call W.A.G., the "Wild Ass Guess". Of this 7,500, a significant number will: already be in another relationship, although not marriage; will have had such a bitter prior relationship experience that they want nothing to do with any man whatsoever; are waiting for Ryan Gosling; are not interested in MCARP for idiosyncratic reasons. My "WAG" is 2/3, leaving about 2,500 women in an area that goes from Guthrie to Norman and from El Reno to Shawnee.
Best estimate of women MCARP will have no interest in for reasons of his own, 1/2, leaving 1,250 women in Oklahoma City metro as MCARP's dating pool.
(As a complete aside, in case you haven't figured it out, this is my own caculation done for myself that I've adopted broadly for MCARP.)
Chances that the two of them will be able to establish any kind of emotional connection whatsoever, in my experience, 10%, leaving 125 women.
Percentage of those women who will put you in "the friend zone" for reasons of their own, 90%, leaving 13 women. Percentage that MCARP would put in "the friend zone", 90%, leaving, charitably, 2.
Chance that you've already met them and blown them off or been blown off for some random reason + chance that you've met or dated one of their friends and they hate you for it + chance they have some gawdawful Jesus-y Republican politics + chance they are isolated by workaholism and kids from a prior marriage + chance they just don't have the wherewithall to try and sustain a relationship with a reclusive and depressed middle-aged man = 50-50, leaving one.
Chance of finding her = 1/1,000,000.
Chance that looking for her will make you frustrated and bitter, 100%.
Chance that looking for you will make her frustrated and bitter, 100%.
Chance of ever in this life of finding a loving, fulfilling and happy long-lasting relationship at this age and stage of our lives, 0%.
Chance that either MCARP or I will pay attention to this reality, 0%.
Chance that we will blame ourselves for this state of affairs, 100%.
Have a great weekend!
Blogblah!
Post a Comment