“Except if married men have mid-life crises, men who haven’t ever truly been able to commit have no-life crises.” (350)
“There’s nothing a man with low self-esteem loves more than a beautiful woman who doesn’t know she’s beautiful.” (21)
“Perhaps the secret to fidelity is knowing that the grass is crazier on the other side.” (250)
“You can’t just date people randomly and then hope to slowly ease them into a non-monogamous relationship. You have to be upfront from the beginning.” (171)
“Polyamory is not just about having room in one’s heart for more love, it’s also about having room for more pain and guilt. If love hurts, then polyamory kills.” (276)
“As a culture, we voraciously consume horror movies about vampires, ghosts, zombies, and other supernatural beings. But people are much scarier than any monster we can make up. It’s not just the acts of horror they perpetrate on each other, but even when they spare the person’s life, they still take their soul, their spirit, their happiness.” (60)
my ego is recovering from the recent friend-zoning, and i am able to reflect on this year’s lessons and blessings, as that is what this year of dating differently has unfolded to be. i suppose it’s fitting that i’m going back to this book now. i grouped these passages together because they seem to deal with different relationship choices across the spectrum (monogamy, monotony, polyamory, and non-committed serial dating). i suppose that i’ve been falling into the last category, and if it means that i’m taking up some space in a category that’s usually reserved for doods-then so be it.
i can say that it’s interesting to see the spectrum of people who are online operating at different levels of focus- from the sex-driven to the marriage minded (i got a message from someone who led with “i’m looking for a long-term relationship that will eventually end in marriage, is that something you are interested in too?” and i looked at his profile and his “about me” was the same sentence. i wrote back honestly and succinctly, “not really”. and he replied, “ok, do you want to be friends first?”). i cancelled my profile this morning.
but the ones in the middle are the most fascinating-the ones who are looking for others to form an open relationship with (note: if you’re a shitty communicator and are not currently in a relationship that you can open up, you’re probably not going to be good at a brand new open relationship with a stranger-but that’s why there are hinge positions), those who are seeing someone and still dating, those who have a roster, and those who claim to be looking for someone to fall in love with but cannot see beyond their noses.
i guess it’s hard out here. the warning is always about people who are over 35 and have never been married, but i resist that because i fall into that category-though it’s different for women because we do have to figure out every freaking thing, and we are much more adaptable. although i am wary of those who are very connected to their mothers (i need to actually listen to the warning sign of mentioning mothers on the first date) and those who are over 40 and still recount high school memories (ok, uncle rico) and experiences-i always wonder why they are stuck there, and what the heck they’ve been doing for the past 25 years.
anyway, i do remember appreciating the difficulties that the notorious player was running into whilst dabbling in the multiple side of the relationship spectrum, and all the work he did to end up on the more traditional side. i’m not sure if i co-sign with that model, but i can see how it would work for some people. i guess it’s all about finding the people with which you agree the most, or at least disagree the least with what your deal breakers are.
for the record-to the person who led with “deal breaker question number one-warriors or cavs?” who didn’t like my answer of “not for the dubs, but anti-cavs, though kyrie was robbed of finals MVP because if it wasn’t for him, they wouldn’t have got past game 5″, i don’t like people who lead with deal breaker questions. there’s a reason my (inactive) profile states that you should message me if you speak to people the same way online as you do in real life, and i know that i may be robbing myself of the full experience by not fully believing in it but shit-i don’t approach it like american gladiator or the big brother house-i am here to make friends.
i just need a minute to get over being friend-zoned by someone i liked.
and more importantly, i need to not rub it in when they realize later what they were too foolish to see in the moment. i was talking to someone yesterday who thinks that certain women are friend-zoned because we’re too cool, but that seems so backwards, because doesn’t everyone want to be with someone who is cool? that’s what i want…or that’s what i should start acting like. because i seem to only go for those who are aloof and indecisive and never satisfied and self-serving.
“It’s odd how relationship work like that: Love is not an accident. It is a delicate union of two complex, complementary puzzle pieces that have inadvertently been created by different manufacturers.” (405)
or, perhaps i don’t really want to be with anyone else at all so that’s why i always make such safe, terrible choices. it’s a way of being in control. and i went into a sensory-deprivation tank for the first time last night. i’ve only ever seen it on the simpsons and i didn’t hallucinate, but i did wake up this morning with the realization that nobody is running to be the savior that you won’t be to yourself, so i guess we all have our work to do, and my real dream is to find someone who can/will/wants to do that work separately at the same time.
just like the ice rink.