Sometimes I read too much

Ladies
More from the Eternal Source of Conversation Prolongers (aka, the interwubs),. Comes this article : http://www.salon.com/mwt/col/tenn/2009/09/25/time_for_marriage/index.html, from salon.com. It is from an advice column where a self-proclaimed “fun” lady of 32 whines about how she cannot be a “fun and liberated” while searching for “the one” to marry, which is supposedly what she wants to do. She wonders whether she is a slut, and why she has to change her behavior, i.e. withhold sex, in order to find a guy to pay attention to her beyond date number one. Our brave and intrepid advice-columnist answer dude responds pretty well, saying that she has no exact need to change her behavior, unless, of course, she wants different results.

This is an interesting piece because it is so evident. The woman berates herself for consistently falling in to the same trap of hit-and-runs that is her love life, flirting, sexing up, and being left by, men with clearly little interest in her beyond her “funness”. Yet she complains that she wants to get married because she is so old, that it is now time for her to settle down. I have problems with this situation – she clearly cannot find someone more interested in her because, well, she is not that interested in her. What, may I ask, is so fun about someone who is pretty much bound to do just what you are looking for temporarily, with no intrigue, with no confusion? That, to me, is boring. Also, does she not understand the nature of settling down? If you want someone to marry you, lady, you need to show that you can be trusted to hold out a little bit, so that, you know, you don’t sleep with the next dude who crosses your path (that probably won’t be your husband). Marriage does not have to be boring, or closed-minded, but it does entail self-respect, honesty, and trustworthiness to work.

Which is exactly the same thing our valiant responder said. I applaud his answer - calm down, respect yourself, honestly look at yourself and why you want to get married before you accept the next ring to cross your path. There is no endless pondering of why women cannot be “liberated” and value relationships at the same time, because it is clear. This is not to say that you cannot open up your own view of marriage and relationships to include sexual liberalness, it is just that you seriously must take in to consideration the concept that a “traditional” view of marriage is traditional because it is common held, and that means you are more likely to find dudes who find marriage to be monogamous and long-term (at least theoretically) than not. And you are not showing them you believe the same. This article seems to be an example of a woman misunderstanding her own viewpoint of feminism, and the male response that is more appropriate. Intriguing. Am I wrong in this interpretation? What backhandedness have I missed (I am sure there is some)?

Second, This article, also from salon.com, on facebook and divorces: http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2009/09/29/facebook_divorce/index.html
. I thought it was pertinent for oh so many reasons. Number one, because of the recent need to thoroughly examine the topic, number two because it is fascinating, and number three because I can use this fully as evidence to enrage the facebook-fight joke between the boy and I. Hellz no I don’t want no ex-boyfriend on the book knowing I broke up with my current one, fo’sho! And the thorough legal examination of all things one does, including all things one does online, is interesting. Of course due diligence involves the internet! When we can incarcerate for internet porn and divorce for internet affairs, our digital actions are clearly quite legally applicable. In my life I have become more and more paranoid about certain things – privacy, health, passion – and the knowledge of just how far reaching anything I put on facebook becomes is just one more very large weight on the side leaning me towards more careful action (care in speech is yet a practice I have developed). Do I want my friends to see my pictures? Do I adore sifting through facebook updates and photos of beautiful and interesting acquaintances? Of course! Do I want people I do not particularly like looking at pictures of my boyfriend’s family vacation, just because I feel obliged to be their friend on facebook because we had a class together once? Not so much.

And a third article, from scientific American, because I find the science of love (read: oxytocin) fascinating: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-falling-in-love-make. The first point of interest is the global vs. local thinking, which I have read about in previous scientific American articles. The idea that thinking further ahead gives us a sort of permission to think of more creative solutions than thinking immediately is pretty awesome. Somehow the risk of new ideas is averted when pressure is taken out of the equation, and that somehow we believe creativity to be somewhat dangerous (of course, it’s a Darwin thing). This explains my birthday present to the boy (a series of envelopes he opened as his birthday got closer, with narratives retelling pieces of a story about Russian hikers lost in the Himalayas and supposedly eaten by a yeti) as well as our fabulous second date (glow-sticks taped to a kite, flown in a storm, at 11 pm. With beer. Nothing yet has rivaled it). Perhaps this phenomenon can explain why activists are sometimes the most creative (read: weird) people. Yes, there are exceptions (yes, that means you) but it is worth thinking about.

So, after all of this reading, I am bound to come up with my own answer to our aging husbandless-worrier from earlier: Clearly, she should think about love, and she will become more creative in her endeavors to find it. Which may or may not involve posting a rant to facebook. QED.