Double Standards at Their Best

I am coming to you from within a fog - somewhere between depression and indifference...if there exists such a place. I therefore am taking this opportunity to warn you about the absolute anger of this post...

To my own detriment, I often have conversations with my male friends about the females that they're seeing ::ahem:: a.k.a. dismantling their self-esteem through small, deliberate action. After hearing them demean these women through objectification, a discernible paranoia washes over me. I realize that, just as they are speaking about these women, the men who I see/have seen probably refer to me in the same manner. "Yea, dude. She's not going anywhere, I don't even have to try." Wow. Really?

One classic example of this is the double standard that has been haunting the dating scene since the beginning of time - sex on the first date. While speaking to a male (who shall remain nameless for fear that his name will become an expletive) about his first date he said, "Yea, we had sex. It's no good, you know? When it's that easy...there's nothing to work toward. You get bored." To which, in true jaded fashion, I replied, "You realize how incredibly hypocritical that is, right?" You pushed for the sex, she was attracted enough to you to go for it (lucky you) and now she's a slut who gives it up too easily? This is absolutley (and excuse my language here) fucking ridiculous.

Because men are, at best, primitive, animal-like beings, they live for the chase. They want to hunt for their food and when the prey becomes too easy to obtain, they lose interest. It truly is a wonder men's knuckles don't continue to drag the ground as they blunder through New York City looking for their next meal.

I really do hate to be the first to break it to them (and I say this with full confidence knowing the absolutely ignorance and stupidity of the male race) but women oftentimes want sex just as much as you do. Therefore, if the mood strikes, whether it be on a first or a tenth date, we will probably go for it if we like you. Granted, it will most likely be a HUGE disappointment as you attempt to find the clitoris, but nonetheless, it'll satiate about 25% of the desire we do have for your minimal, disappointing efforts.

This double-standard is something that is most likely propagated by the 50s male mentality - you want a homemaker; a woman who is willing to raise your mediocre children - and a chick who gives it up on the first date is not the ideal candidate for such a lifestyle. If this is the case, and the theory holds true, then by god I think every woman should have sex on the first date to save herself from the depressing, unexciting life of being a housewife...

Or, we should make men wait until they're chafing so badly they want nothing more than for a girl to give it up on the first date...the choice is yours I suppose.

I warned you this one would be ugly...

What would you like in your relationship, mademoiselle?

"What are you looking for?" It seemed (on the surface) like a fairly innocuous question. As I opened my mouth to answer however, I became instantly stuck...what on earth was I looking for when it came to romantic relationships? Obviously, the cliched desires came to mind: "someone who shares my interest, someone who's easy to talk to; there can never be a break in the conversation, yadda yadda yadda."

However, is this really what I want? When I think of the person who can capture and hold my interest, I certainly don't want a carbon copy of myself (after all, I am with me all the time and trust me, I'm pretty damn boring). Also, when it comes to ease in conversation (while that may be important), is that really the be-all and end-all? I have easy conversations with a lot of my male friends, but I don't want to date any of them - so what gives?

Part of me wonders if the fuel to my fire is the whole notion of unattainability - do I pursue those men who, even if on the surface they seem uninteresting, ignore me on some level? Why on EARTH is that so incredibly appealing? Am I therefore looking for someone to ignore me but, at the same time, declare me to be their 'girlfriend'? If so, that's absolutely ridiculous and I probably need some form of mental help.

And then, a very simple, concise sentence came to mind: "I want a man I can trust." While I have met many men over the course of these 2 years in dating hell, I have not met one that was worthy of my trust or my faith. Granted, they have been nice and all-around decent people but in truth, they've been remarkably mediocre and certainly not worthy of my trust. So maybe the trust will serve as a foundation for bigger and better things when it comes to choosing a mate. However, in true jaded fashion, I'm not holding my breath. After all, when speaking to one of my male friends about this epiphany he said, and I quote: "A man you can trust? Ha. Good luck."

So there you go.

Crack Addict

This weekend, a friend of mine went on a mini-rant about the futility of texting and BBMing - "There's a lapse in between communication - you can edit what you say and think it over numerous times. There's no immediacy! It's so transparent - if you want to TALK to me, you will call me. End of story."

I know that I agree with her, especially in regards to the incessant editing/reevaluation that comes along with sending a text message to a romantic prospect - "Do I say 'I enjoy hanging out with you' or 'I like spending time with you'?" We try time and again for the text message that will (on the surface anyway) be indicative of some level of vulnerability while also managing to seem aloof/unaffected. This is a skillful game of syntax, diction, and semantics. It's almost like cell phone jenga - we fear that the wrong word could immediately cause the whole thing to come crashing down. This fear is then only exacerbated by the fact that, as my friend so wisely stated, "They can ignore a text message." That lapse in time (for me, it's scary if it exceeds 6 minutes) causes yet another wave of worry: "Oh God, was I too quick to respond? Does it seem like I have nothing else going on? Did I say something that turned them off?" However, "If you get them on the phone, you get to hear their reaction right away".

What my friend fails to realize however is that, in today's day and age, a phone call is rare and almost considered a relationship-type action. Now, while I realize this is completely and utterly ridiculous, even modern women want to be pursued. We don't want to dial the number because it then feels as though we're doing the pursuing, and that's just bonkers. Shooting a text message out into the void and seeing what comes back to us is much less risky. After all, we can always say (should they not respond): "Huh, maybe they just didn't get it..." Also, text messages allow us to avoid the ever exciting first voicemail: "Oh, hey, uh, it's Christine. Just wanted to say hey and see what you were up to...yea, so...give me a call when you get this UNLESS you're busy then no worries. But give me a call back when you can (but you don't have to). Shit. OK. Bye." Yea, sometimes, I prefer the option to edit.

I really am a dating communication "crack addict" - I've noticed that in between communication with a romantic prospect, I am on edge...almost jonesing for that next contact. When my phone rings or I hear the hopeful buzz of a text message and look to find their name there (New Txt Message: Individual who will inevitably disappoint you) I breathe a sigh of relief. They will disappear, just not today. Not now. The only worry that remains is - when will I get my next hit?