The David Copperfield Moment

Reading online profiles is engaging sport. By looking at the photos and comparing the narrative with the headline I try to put together a general abstract of the woman and what she's thinking.

You need to be an amateur cryptologist to do this, because no-one displays their complete self in a personal ad. Once you've spent enough time puzzling over a lot of these things, patterns become clear. Successful decryption begins with finding repeated words and phrases. These commonalities, repeated in many separate profiles, form the starting point from which entire messages can be cracked.

What is interesting is how few profiles stand out from the crowd. A lot of the time it's like reading the equivalent of - sorry to say this - a whole bunch of classifieds. This is not criticism, merely observation. Revealing telling insights with a coupla snaps and two-hundred words isn't normal, with good reason. Self-protection is a valuable instinct.

Near the top of my 'memorables' list is a woman who posted a confident, breezy profile with some likewise upbeat photos. One pic, of her standing beside an F-250 in jeans and heels, had the following caption:


Me and my truck - when I'm wearing a skirt you will probably want to help me up! ;-) 


Wombat Decode Report:

1. I understand that if ever you're my boyfriend, you'll be interested in my body.

2. I'm good with that.




Bottoms Up, Magicians.  

State of the Union

After a couple of months' reflection, a few thoughts:


+ men want women

+ women want men


Some motivations last longer than a tv season. Additionally, it is mostly the case that:


+ men want to (eventually) find the one woman with whom to live HEA

+ women want to (eventually) find the one man with whom to live HEA


No revelation there, either, although I think we underestimate men's desire for this, especially as marriage appears to provide more physical and mental health benefits for them.

Notwithstanding part II, above:


+ men often pursue women diabolically unsuitable to the job of living HEA

+ women often pursue men chronically unable to live with them HEA


Which is fine, because previous generations are horrible at passing on their experience, and so we need to learn the same lessons about failing at relationships. Each generation relearns afresh. However:


+ men often settle rather than quit

+ women often settle rather than quit


I think the reason we sabotage ourselves in the search for the right person is that it's fun chasing and being chased - we get off on pursing and being pursued. In short, the game itself becomes the objective.

There comes a point in every relationship - except with the one - when we need to call it off. It might be after the first date or it might be after a year, but bailing will be the best course for both of you.

That's the trick IMO. Knowing when to jump, and knowing when to stick.



Bottoms Up, Gamers.

But Then Again, Too Few to Mention

Maria Grazia Cucinotta pic. 

Choosing the right partner.

I don't know, if there is some secret to making this happen, it's surely not in my possession. The answer is tantalizingly close, like she's so almost there...but she's not.

Or is she?

I am unmarried because I have yet to meet the right person. Well, maybe I've met her, but all the folderol surrounding dating is a barrier. Some people are ready, some people are not, and so the world turns.

Maturity matters. Some people I know married early in life, but they had it together enough to make it work. On the other hand, there are perpetually lagging souls who only present as decent prospects after a few years in oak barrels. Everyone's mileage varies.

If there is magic to be learned, maybe it is just that - that we're all different, and you knowing when you're ready for decanting is paramount.



Bottoms Up, Vignerons.

BTW, here's how to choose a wedding day limousine.

Kissing Confidential

Gwendolyn Whiteside's photo credit. 

I was seven and she was seven. She kissed me once, then she kissed me again. She turned into my first kissing partner, a classroom conspiracy engineered by her. I was a lost but complicit co-conspirator, unsure of what it was all about. Why is she doing this? What part should I be playing here? Why does she taste so good?

Jane Phillips, where are you? Wanna give it another shot?

The kissing faded, as did her ardor for me. Perhaps our mutual lack of make-out skills doomed us from the start, but my suspicion is that I killed it. Too much thinking, not enough action. I should have just rolled with it, especially as Jane not only brought extra lunch to school for me, but went out of her way to walk home with me too. She was the definition of the perfect girlfriend. With memory of the kissing faded, what remained was her smell, which I can conjur to this day.

But Jane wasn't the first person to kiss me. That would, presumably, have been my mother. Right, so they're two completely different kinds of kissing, but they're the same physical action separated only by context. Interesting that at a family function we can kiss a close friend or relative as a sign of connection and fealty, then go on to kiss our wife or husband and communicate something so much more. Kissing is both an instrument of alliance and of overt sexuality.

If you're a mechanistic evolutionist you'd look for a reason for the kiss. For kissing to survive as a behaviour it must have some benefit for both parties. Let's see. There is the transfer of germs - good for babies acquiring their parents' immune sophistication. There is the shared smell of swapping skin flakes and saliva - a sort of hazmat solidarity. And there's the busting of the very last ring of personal space - a what's yours is mine suspension of physical defences. Add up these elements and we have that most endearing of human qualities, the ability to give yourself to another, signalled by the pressing of one's mouth onto the body, head or mouth of another.

Evolution is a brutal judge of superfluous behaviour. Kissing survives for only one reason, and that is because it aids species continuation. Kissing is a quick and dirty way of figuring out if you're a sexual match. Bad kisser, bad lover. If she tastes wrong, she probably is wrong. On the other hand, someone who gives good kiss moves a long way up the list of preferred partners, and, speaking personally, a good kisser is a heavenly gift notwithstanding the outcome. A good kisser stands alone as such, or can lead to extra complexity ie: another generation of kissers.

Which brings me to the undeniable fact - that kissing has power beyond simple intimacy. We're social creatures, and we're tactile too. We want to meld with a special other, and the power of this drive appears to go beyond mere reproduction. At a fundamental level, we understand that attachment to another one and then descending levels of closeness to relatives and non-related individuals in concentric circles fulfills us. It's tribalism, the need to belong and know that we belong. Hence the kiss of enormous variation, from the humble kissing of the hand - at your service, Your Majesty - to the unbridled heat of connection during sex.

 Kissing sends the universal message - I want to be a part of you.




Bottoms Up, You Big Beautiful Kissers You.

Foreclosure

 Christiana Credit.

Hey. I hear you and {the girlfriend} have split.*

Yeah. We're in foreclosure.

How so?

Well, we figured that neither one of us had been making payments on the relationship for a while. 

So we just let it slide. Let the bank take it back, you know.

That seems kinda bloodless. You two had been together for, what, two years?

*shrugs* I guess. But when you're that far upside-down, sometimes there's nothing else to do.

And what if someone picks her up as a short sale?  

You can be a real prick, you know that?

Bottoms Up, Investors.


* Me talking. 

Supermarket for People

Everywhere. They're everywhere. Dating sites for this, dating sites for that, dating sites for the most obscure sub-groups of humanity...and some in which only one partner is human.



Ahem.



If the internet has become the most efficient way yet of delivering porn, one side-effect is the cereal-aisle choice of ways to find The One. Not only are we singles looking up at El Capitan when figuring out how to get the right squelchy one, the delivery system is now its own nightmare. Am I a J-Dater? Am I after a MILF? Can I narrow myself down dating only millionaire women?



Oh, darn. That last one is only for women looking for millionaires. Maybe the market niche for men looking to date millionairesses is ripe for exploitation.



When we're all in our dotage, I predict we'll look back on this time with amusement. Apart from the fact that our current state of connectedness will look as clumsy as Bill Gates trying to dance, internet dating will look spectacularly agricultural. Most of these places are great big classified sites with photos. They suit men because we can rifle through a ton of photographs to find the horniest looking women, and send them an email to spark their attention. NO effort required. Thoughtful interest in finding a real relationship NON-existent. Trolling for sex at a MAXIMUM.



Yes, I know. Relationships do start from dating websites. My point is that they're entirely unnatural. Are we really designed to meet people by way of a People Catalogue? Does the supermarket Dating Aisle sound right to you?



There are some folks creating more organic sites. My favourite is Barstalk. The idea of meeting people in real life is the BIG reason I like the idea. It feels much closer to the natural architecture of finding a mate. They use the internet as it should be, as a filter to discard those who aren't up for a drink. Not that drinking is necessarily the right connective tissue for everyone, but if you do drink and live in New York City, it's logical to see if there's someone out there who shares your bar preference or simply looks like a likely martini-partner.



Too many choices make life overwhelming. Simplicity burns away the fog of indecision. Dating can be simple too. Let it be so.









Bottoms Up, Captain Morgan.

Getting To Know You

Photo credit.

How long does it take to know another person? If you're dating with a view to marriage, the magic time appears to be around the eighteen month mark. If accurate (or even close) that leads to a few unavoidable truths.

-> If you have been dating someone for longer than two years, and marriage isn't explicitly on the horizon, it probably won't happen.

-> After dating for longer than two years, if the question of marriage appears obliquely or indirectly, you probably shouldn't marry that person.

-> Excessively speedy marriages ie: those within six months of meeting, are likely to founder because you really don't know the other person.

-> When you're dating and learning about your possible long-term partner, often the only way to smoke out problems is to ask pointed questions eg:

~ do you or any of your family have a history of depression or other mental problems?

~ do you have any addictive traits, for instance alcohol, drugs or gambling?

~ do you want children or not, and how many if so?

~ do you think you can change me (other than perhaps my wardrobe)?

~ will you need me to be with you all the time, or will I have some independence?


Too often we float along in a cloud of denial, thinking that when the time comes, it'll all work out.

No it won't.

Life will throw sufficient variables at you - deliberately taking on stuff that doesn't jive with your own life-story is asking for heartache multipliers beyond that which will test any relationship.

Better to face the difficult questions, then say NO, even if your dreamboat appears to be the One. Leave the fog of fantasy and get tough. Relationships don't survive pussies.





Bottoms Up, Tough Guys.

Bad Girls - To Emulate or Not?

Photo credit and Interview with Dr Carole.

Tuesday night I took this book on a tour of some local bars. A book might appear an odd choice of drinking companion, but this one is different - it's entitled "Bad Girls" and sports this alluring cover photo.

People were interested.

I also asked folks if they knew any of the bad girls listed in the index, and if they were experienced with them. Everyone had at least one story to tell.

So it's about how less adventurous, milquetoast girls can learn the man-eating ways of sexually confident, experienced women, right?

The full title is:

Bad Girls: Why Men Love Them & How Good Girls Can Learn Their Secrets. Emphasis mine.


Nope. Nothing of the sort. It is in fact a mirror image of that idea, describing in detail the sub-species of Bad Girls (The Gold-Digger, The Sex Siren,the Ball Buster, The Husband-Stealer etc) and how men can identify a weakness for - and avoid falling for - any of them.

Now that's useful information.

Important Point: The research behind the concepts presented is thorough and well written. Even more valuable is the way in which the author, Dr Carole Lieberman, carefully explained the vulnerabilities of certain men to the "attractions" of specific "bad girls". I found myself described in there, and the type of Bad Girl who fits my weakness.

Guess which. * LOL*

So, I have no hesitation recommending this book to anyone interested in understanding some of the possibilities as to why men choose certain women, AND why women end up clearly fitting some of the Bad Girl stereotypes.

That said, here are some random thoughts:

~ I wonder if this book stands out because Dr Lieberman is a psychiatrist, NOT a psychologist.

~ Whomever came up with the sub-title had not read one word of the book. It just doesn't fit.

~ I remain a little confused as for whom the book was written; men or women or both?

~ Pet Peeve: Editing and Layout. If the book is meant as a How-To, I think it needed a whole lot of creative input. As it is, page after page of standard text alternating with italicized real-life research excludes the kind of reader who might want to dip in-and-out. Fortunately, the writing style is clear, but it could work so much better. SO much better. It succeeds almost despite itself.

~ As an example of the poor production values, chapter commencement pages listed in the index do not match the actual pages in the book. Lazy and sloppy.


But these are all quibbles about publishing, not the material.

Worth your time.


Bad Girls. Why Men Love Them & How Good Girls Can Learn Their Secrets, By Dr Carole Lieberman.

ISBN 978-2-923865-12-6

Published by Cogito Media Group.




Bottoms Up, Good Girls.

wombat@kissnblog.com

The Girlfriend Experience

I want to write something along the lines of:

The Girlfriend Experience is about the closeness of two people meshing at inter-dimensional levels for spiritual reasons.

But that doesn't ring true - the contradictory evidence in my life alone is overwhelming.

Maybe that's because the whole relationship-dating complex tends toward hard-bitten-ness as people age. We begin to appear as - or begin to look for - financial saviours or mental leaning-posts rather than specially connected individuals.

My golden age was from fifteen until twenty-one. Innocent of wordly motives, a girlfriend was just that - about having a girl as a friend. Girls are soft and smell great and feel different and look at shit differently. That's nice. I want one of them close to me, on my side.

Innocence. That's the key word, implying a voyage of discovery with someone. From innocence to knowledge. And then to BDSM, but only after a decent interval.



Girlfriend Experience illustration from here [link]

Central Casting

"Central Casting" is the metaphoric place writers go when they can't find (or are too lazy to work-up) the words to describe a person. Or a dog. It's a kind of shorthand that says "picture perfect just like Hollywood makes."

I'm reading a book in which the over-educated author wrote that (and I paraphrase because if I have to find and read that paragraph again I'll resort to opening the emergency vodka) a Scottish Terrier in the doorway of a Scottish house looked like he was "...from central casting".

Somehow it escaped her that all Scottie dogs look alike and therefore one doesn't need Central Casting: Canine Division. And finding one around a house in Scotland is even less Hollywood - it's a slice of the real world.

Anyway, I'm clearly over-thinking this.

But consider what a store called "Central Casting" would look like. It would be an online fantasy showcase of people and the qualities we think would fulfill all our desires in another person. (Sorry, it sounds kinda creepy, but it's all in the imagination.)

Dreaming about what you'd do with the winnings of a big lottery draw is a close analogy. At Central Casting, you would find the picture perfect partner. Add the best of all the real-life stuff from normal living, plus the magic of Hollywood.

It would be like a Whole Foods for singles - only not full of rich greenies wearing condescension-brand sandals. People like us would wander the aisles; discerning, wise people, observing the kind of quality goods Central Casting stocks.




Bottoms Up, Shoppers!

Never Look a Gift Babe in the Brain

Mr Nights' comment yesterday neatly captured one segment of men's response to women.

Never look a gift babe in the brain translated means if she's willing to have sex, the conversation won't matter. So we don't worry about it.

Compartmentalization rules. Women will fall into a few obvious categories, with some variation from man to man. Women will be:

-> for sex and sex-related activities if it's clear that's what they want.

-> for company and conversation if they mesh with our intellectual/physical interests.

-> for fun and amusement if our senses of humour are compatible.

-> for marriage and procreation if our spirits are synchronous.

Overlaps occur; think of them as interconnecting doors between compartments.

In a perfect world one woman would fulfill all of our needs, or, to complete the metaphor, fill all our compartments.

I have a half-formed idea that we can have sex with all of the woman-types, but that might be because I'm tired. We probably even attempt relationships (longer than a few shags) with one-compartment women, with predictable results. These are doomed.

Realistically, a decent level of all four compatibilities should be the minimum for an attempt at something serious. Figuring out that kind of thing takes time...and really, who has the patience for that stuff thesedays?





Bottoms Up, Compartmentalists!

Trust

Trusty is a brand of dog-food, and dog-food is what you'll end up if you trust the wrong person. Trust improperly placed leads to anger, unhappiness, self-doubt and sexually transmitted disease, and I guess a hundred variations of these things. You know what I mean if you've eaten from that particular bowl - the aftertaste can last for a long time.

I see trust as a more tricky creature than love. Love has positive overtones - even falling out of love has a romantic side, but falling out of trust is deadly. Wouldn't relationships look different if we replaced the word 'love' with 'trust'?

~ I think I'm falling in trust with her

~ He's so trustable I could squeal

~ Every day I wake up and trust her more

He's a sneaky varmint, too, that trust, because he has a self-destructive streak. He often works against those who are closest to him, acting and thinking contrary to his (and their) best interest. One day he's a docile household pet, the next he's sneaking home at all hours smelling of drug-store perfume and rum. And yet it's impossible to lock him up and tame him, because trust is as much about the trustor as the trustee. Trust exists, and can thrive or die, in a mutual space.

Actually, forget the trust-as-animal analogy. A better thought is to liken finding trust to underground mining. The idea is to find seams of gold or opal hidden amidst tons of other rocks. You keep digging away, day after day, and with each discovery of a nugget comes joy, and hopefully an addition to your bank- (or trust-) balance. That sounds about right to me. Trust is often found unexpectedly, often hard-won, and accumulates over time.

If there's another way, I'm unaware.






Photo from here. [Link]

Save me I'm single!

It would all be so much easier if:

~ we didn't need sex to reproduce

~ the urge to reproduce weren't as strong

~ we weren't as fascinated by the other sex

~ we weren't as fascinated by sex

~ we didn't think about relationships so much

~ we didn't think so much

We shall never solve all the problems of meeting the right person and sustaining a relationship with them. Humans are an imperfect animal, prone to changes of direction, and our relationship architecture reflects that. The search for fairy tale endings and happy ever after is, to me, a deliberate misread of you and us. Reality will find a way to disappoint you if it's perfection you seek.

Technology is wonderful, its benefits clear. In this particular field, I have my doubts. Two cases in particular encourage delusional thinking.

Exhibit A: Online dating. Argh! I know, people find each other every day via this medium. For every successful couple (relationship longevity unknown) there are thousands of men and women whose view of possible partners is skewed by having them presented as another shopping option. It's one giant People Mall out there, the very idea of which gives me the creeps.

Exhibit B: Reproduction outside the body aka: in vitro fertilization. What an example of amazing science and bioengineering. Unfortunately, it is a powerful option with uses for both good and not so good. For couples unable to become pregnant naturally, it is the most wonderful gift. For many other applications, I am dubious. More than anything, I worry that we see IVF as a justification for delaying child-bearing even longer than we do already. This is a subtle influence, allowing folks who might otherwise settle to have families of their own a few more years of self-indulgence.

In a way, we're the (single) victims of our inventiveness.

Being Single Part 1, Being Single Part 3, Being Single Part 4.