Educated Dating

It's been very refreshing lately to listen to a group of women whose opinions and education I very much respect discuss something as mundane as dating. I'm not one of them; they live in a different state. But our conversations prove to me that IQ is not EQ. These wonderful people have nothing fresh or poignant to say about dating. Is the subject simply too trite? Is all the dating wisdom simply already in circulation? What have I already said about dating? What could I possibly say? I don't date.

Let me give you the statistics. Two weeks ago, a gentleman took me to a film. Just a film. I loved the film, but not the experience, so no more dates with him. Before that date, he had asked me out on one previous occasion (we went to the aquarium, and then out for seafood), eighteen months ago. I loved that date, but didn't hear from the guy for a year and a half. Before that, I hadn't been on a date since 2006, and hadn't been asked on a date since high school. So when I say I don't date, it's only partially true, but clearly I'm going through a long haitus. Called my life.

Because of this history, there's no reason for anybody to listen to my dating advice at all, and lots of reasons for almost anyone to be giving it to me. But this is my blog, and I have my own perspective, which I'm going to share with myself. I have as many blog followers as I do dates. I'm clearly winning all the popularity contests here.

 

1) My personality type (INTJ) is more comfortable alone than in a relationship that isn't working for me, so I have no trouble getting rid of men and relationships. Not all personalities are like mine. While I am convinced that my way is best, some people are more emotionally healthy in a bad or fading relationship than trying to function alone. They are extroverts, and they'll make their own decisions.

2) Clearly I don't believe that a relationship is necessary to happiness. Puzzles are necessary. Books are necessary, and sometimes chocolate, but not relationships. And yet loneliness bites. At my age, it doesn't nibble seductively, it does the whole Jaws impression. So, ideally, I prefer a good relationship to being alone.

I have created a clear hierarchy of statuses: a) with someone well, b) alone (there's always books) and c) unhealthy associations.

3) Meeting new people is more fun than eating chocolate and watching Doctor Who (unless it's a new episode). All women are sisters. Few sisters are true friends. Friends prove themselves by tenacity, forgiveness, and gravity.

4) Men are both brothers and potential mates, so meeting them is more complicated and risky. When in an appropriate social setting to meet potential mates, it is important to quickly establish the availability of the subject. I'm terrible at checking for rings, etc., so I generally fail this step completely, or transform magically into a bull in a china shop, as if my fairy god-mother did her bibbity-bobbity-boo.

5) Going on a date is the second gate. My standards are simple: I'll go on a date with anyone available to me (at least meeting minimum morality requirements), who seems fun (food=fun. moral=fun, too), and who asks. I'll accept any number of subsequent dates as long as the first three stipulations still apply. As long as he's still single, fun, and interested, I'm there.

6) The next step is forming an attachment. Once the novelty of a new person is gone, and unless it's replaced with common interests, I'll stop enjoying the company, so "fun" depends on this attachment. I form an attachment (also known as a "crush") with men whose tastes I share, whose intelligence I can recognize, and who can speak at least two of my languages (faith and literature, etc.)

7) Becoming "exclusive" is a sea I have never sailed, because my crushes are almost univerally unrequited. Here there be dragons. I suspect that navigating this water requires all the social skills I never bothered to acquire, like being able to kiss well, and not snorting when you laugh.

8) Committing permanently to an attachment requires more than common interests, fun, or mutual affection. I must admire a gentleman before I propose or accept marriage. I also must have confidence in our ability and committment to weather rough storms, inside or outside of the relationship. Admiration and confidence is built as we include each-other in our lives, and watch each-other recover from mistakes and setbacks. Fun is still necessary, but not in every interaction.

God has the system override codes. His interference or clear guidance can re-order any number of steps, or totally jettison associations.

At no point can any any step override my consciousness. I give God his system override codes and promise to accept them, but I take full control. I decide when I accept a date, whom I allow myself to like, and whom I shall marry. I have no desire to "fall" in love, be "swept off my feet" or, "surrender to destiny." It's not only total hogwash, it's simply bad/lazy decision-making. I don't admire it, and I won't be it. Any potential mate waiting for it will get kicked in the nuts first.

So. . . I basically just gave any potential mate my instruction manual. Unfortunately, I suspect most men have a completely different user guide, which I shall have to psychically devine once I reach an appropriate relationship stage. It strains my brain.