Posted on 09/21/2007 3:12:46 PM PDT by WFTR
This week is National Unmarried and Single Americans Week or National USA Week as the sponsors like to say. The official website for this week is at
http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/usaweek/intro.htm .
This "celebration" started on Monday and will run through the weekend. The celebration is being promoted by a group called "Unmarried America" that calls itself "an information source for the new unmarried majority." This group is trying to capture and represent the interests of all unmarried people and wants to reach out to those beyond traditional "singles" to include widows and widowers, homosexuals, couples living together without marrying, single parents, and about anyone else who isn't married. If you follow the link posted above, you can read a little more about this group.
My first question to our group is, "Do you like the idea of a day or a week set aside to celebrate the contributions of unmarried people to society?" Beyond this question, a few others come to mind. Here they are.
Do you like the idea of setting aside days, weeks, or months to celebrate certain demographic groups or are these celebrations generally a bad idea?
Do you think being unmarried is a good thing to celebrate in this way?
Do you think that this group can effectively represent your views? As part of this question, do you think that all unmarried people have more in common with one another than they do with married people? For instance, does the unmarried couple raising children together have more in common with a traditional family or with a single person living alone?
Speaking of being single
While we're thinking about being single and maybe finding a way not to be single, I wanted to focus on a couple of points from an article that appeared earlier in the month. I’m sure that some of us saw this article and may have discussed it on other threads. I never had a chance to catch the threads, but I want to ask a couple of specific questions.
The article is sarcastically called "Earth-Shattering Study: Men Like Good-Looking Women" and can be found at
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295649,00.html?sPage=fnc.science/humanbody .
My own short explanation of the study is that they used a speed-dating event to study men's and women's choices. They found that in spite of what people claimed to want in the opposite sex, each sex made certain choices. Men chose the best-looking women. Women were aware of how their appearance compared with that of other women and chose the best men that they thought they could attract. The article didn't say how the researchers measured the "most attractive" women or the "best" men.
A crude but maybe accurate interpretation of what they are saying is that we all fall into a kind of relationship caste system. In sports terminology that Americans use more often to describe relationships, we're each in a "league," and we have little chance of dating or marrying someone "outside our league." If we just don't have the right stuff to marry someone in the major league, then we have to learn to accept someone in the minor league.
Do you believe that this idea accurately reflects the way relationships work? In general, are we in a kind of relationship caste system where the best and most beautiful date and marry one another while the rest of us are relegated to finding a lesser partner of our own lesser ranks or is it just as likely for someone who isn't one of the best or most beautiful to build a great relationship with someone is one of the best or most beautiful? I know that we can often find one exception to any rule, but I'm looking for people's opinions of whether the rule is real or just a dating urban legend.
The second issue that came to mind as I read this study is how valid the whole speed-dating scenario is. Some people claim that everything in life is about making a first impression. Recently, I saw an article that claimed that the first impression determines whether someone interviewing for a job will get the job. Of course, many of the people making these claims are people who are trying to sell a system for making a first impression, so they have a vested interest in making us believe that first impressions are most important.
When it comes to dating, how much do you rely on first impressions? If you meet someone in a setting where you are likely to see that person again, do you make an evaluation that is likely to be permanent or do you wait to see how this person's character and traits will unfold over time? Does your impression of someone's attractiveness tend to change over time or are your first impressions usually accurate? Do you think this says more about you or about the people you've met?
Speaking of looks
A final question came from something that Dances with Cats asked a month or so ago. I may get the details of the question wrong, but I think I've captured the basics. The question for each of us is "Do you have a vision of for the physical appearance of the person who is right for you." This vision may not be the appearance that you find most attractive as an ideal but is a physical description of how you think Mr. or Mrs. Right will look when you find that person. If so, how do you describe this person? Is he/she tall, short, medium? What color hair does he/she have? What general body build does this person have? What other details can you give?
One thing I have noticed is that couples that have lived together for years and the get married often quickly split up and divorce.
I have several theories here.
1) They got married because the relationship was already going sour and thought that might help
2) When they just lived together they worked at the relationship for fear the other one walked out but once married they no longer saw the need.
3) Again similar to the above but slightly different. When living together they were on the best behaviour and certain character traits were not apparent as they hid them in case the other would find out and leave. Once married though allowed their true character and wants to show through.
4) One of the couple wanted the marriage and the other was quite happy as they were so from word go it caused tension and every row it was bought up. Nowadays this is often not the woman. In fact I know of 2 long term commited relationships where the man would love to marry the woman but she will not due in one case to an unhappy marriage and guilt of how much was spent on the wedding and knows that her mate would not just settle for a quiet registry office do and small party for friends but because he has not been married before feels he owes his family a big do whereas she would marry him if they could just do it quietly with intimate friends. The second one freely admits though committed and loves her partner to bits and they have 2 children in their late teens together that her first husband was the love of her life and feels she would be short changing her partner of well over 20 years if she married him - crazy I know.
5) And again related to the above reasons when you marry someone and then start living together you discover things about each other and work them out as you go along. If you are already are living together you already know the things that annoy you about your partner and if the marriage makes you least likely to worry about annoying your partner that could well lead to breakdown of the relationship.
They would have nothing in common with the average single who goes to the night club or a singles bar most weekends or pursues activities that either a family could not afford or would not be suitable especially for the younger children.
Well, before looking in on the links and formulating cogent replies to the questions, I CAN respond to the one about looks (appearance / attractiveness): It’s very important to me. I Don’t look for “movie star” or “fashion model” beauty, but I do want a mate that I find attractive. Once attracted, though, it is important that we are compatible in other ways: common interests, a similar outlook on social/political issues, etc. And there’s the rub. I don’t consider myself an attractive specimen, and I wonder if I’m being “shallow.”
I find bald men the most sexy...always have.
Not shallow honest
Absolute perfection.
I love it when a handsome man comes with brains.
That more than anything might be the best argument against cohabitation. Good work here, snugs. :)
So this is what Mary Matalin sees in James Carville...;)
Sounds as though you may either have knowledge of Bigfoot or the secret recipe for Bush's Baked Beans
That's what I was thinking.
If the equation for women were that looks equals power, then I would think that powerful women would seem more attractive. For me, that's not the case. I'd much prefer an attractive woman who doesn't have any particular kind of power to an attractive woman who is in some position of power. Properly used, power means having many demands on one's time, and I'd rather have someone who can focus more on the relationship.
Are you saying that women want the most powerful man that they can catch? If a woman had a chance at someone who could be president, would she go after that man over an equally attractive, equally intelligent man who did not have the political skills to reach political office?
I understand your annoyance with guys who say "I wish my girlfriend were like you," but I also believe that chemistry is hard to quantify in a way that would suggest that the trade between looks and personality is that simple. I've occasionally run into women who wish that their boyfriends or husbands had some quality that I have. It's nice that they appreciate that quality, but I realize that the overall package of who I am isn't enough to catch their hearts. The situation is frustrating, but if the feelings aren't there, then the feelings aren't there. Only two things really make me angry at them. The first is when they reject someone like me and end up with someone who abuses them. The second is when they reject someone like me in order to have kids for some other guy and then come back after the divorce and think that I should take care of them and their kids.
Over the past five or so years, I've run into a couple of women who at first seemed to fit the "if only I felt more attraction to you" pattern. As I've gotten to know them better, I've realized that they wouldn't be right for me even if they looked like Victoria's Secret models. What I always wonder is whether they'd be willing to give me the time of day if they were Victoria's Secret models. If they wouldn't, then that's one more piece of evidence that they really aren't right for me.
Thanks,
Bill
I don't think that the asexuals would necessarily refuse to have sex at all. I think they just wouldn't see sex as a normal part of intimacy. For them, sex would be only a way to produce children. In many ways, some church groups have almost approached this kind of perspective. In the past, some church teachings have suggested that reproduction is the only purpose of sex and that any pleasure derived from sex or any sense of intimacy should be seen as suspect. They still want people to have sex and produce children, but they don't want people to enjoy it. I think some homosexuals may see sex in the same way. They want a child that is their biological child even though they want to raise that child in a "family" that couldn't have produced that child.
Bill
That makes more sense to me then. Normally I don’t recommend watching ABC, but John Stossel does stories like these on 20/20. If memory serves, he did a recent story on asexuality...such a disappointment he’s on ABC, his talents are wasted on that network.
I know exactly how you feel. Looks aren't everything, but if that's the first thought that comes to my mind every time I see someone, I'm never going to have romantic feelings for her. I've spent a tremendous amount of time around women for whom I felt no attraction because I've been told so many times that attraction will often come later. We've built real friendships, but the attraction has never come.
I think that some amount of attraction has to be there in the beginning. I know of one woman whom I considered about as beautiful as anyone. When I first saw her, I could see that she had what most would consider to be good looks, but I didn't think she was all that spectacular. She was married, so I didn't really care. On the other hand, I was amused at the effect she had on other guys. I later had a chance to get to know her better, and I realized that she was a really neat lady in every way. As I came to find her personality attractive, I started to see her as being absolutely beautiful.
I also agree that there has to be more to the relationship than just a physical attraction. If we don't have some things in common and can't agree on some basic philosophies of living, the relationship won't be successful.
I also understand the feeling that I'm nothing special to attract the kind of woman who I would find attractive.
Bill
This couldn't be more true, IMO. It's something I have to keep in mind when I see a lot of kids my age thinking with their hormones rather than their souls.
(As an aside, that could be a great tagline: "Think with your soul, not your hormones.")
He is a great guy and a good friend but in some ways a sad figure as he never has and never will have a special person in his life. Also he does not have any very close friends many acquaintances but no real soul mate male or female. The nearest to a true friend I would say was at one time when he lived a lot nearer and dad was more mobile was dad.
Many men do not want to get too close to him as they wonder if he is a closet homosexual but there is nothing like that he has no sexual feelings or understanding of them be male or female.
In fact the whole thing has past over his head he lives for soccer and has worked in the industry in a professional administration role but would never progress to the top though has the skills because again there is the question mark over his sexuality and where there are young males this means no progress for our friend. This is sad because he would have made a great senior administrator for a professional club.
One example of how ignorant and uninterested he is in sexual things. Many years ago he was telling us some red hot news he had learned about a take over of a soccer club by prominent middle eastern business men. He said lesbian business men, I had to walk away from to avoid laughing out-loud and that left it to dad to explain they were Lebanese not lesbian. His response to this was “is there a difference?”. I overheard this and had to walk even further away as this time I could not contain my laughter.
Dad then explained the difference and Malcolm our friend was shocked he had never heard of such a thing and did not realise that some women got up to these practices. He thought it disgusting and totally beyond his comprehension.
We are still fairly close (dad spoke to him on the phone today) to him and he actually turned up at our house on the day of my mother’s funeral which I will always be grateful to him as this helped dad so much to have Malcolm to occupy his mind and remember many good times.
It sounds to me that your friend would be what a lot of people here in the US would consider a “loner”. Perhaps because sexuality—in whatever form it takes on—is so ubiquitous here in the “West” that most people tend to view his situation in a sexual context (i.e.: “is he gay”? “Is he impotent”?, and so on.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.