The Value of Experience

Experience is what you get when you didn't get what you wanted....

Two Basic Errors Women Make

I received the following question from a friend (not a client, since client communications are confidential) asking for dating advice. I secured her permission to reprint her (modified) email and my response in full. It demonstrates a couple of basic errors that women make in their dating lives, which they pick up from our Oprahized culture.


Dear JJ:

As you know, I'm a very outspoken, loud, strong and opinionated woman. I speak my mind and know what I like and what I don't like. I am always upfront about my past (cancer) and problems stemming from it. Particularly, as you know I have both scarring and limping as a result of my bout with cancer.

I think my strength, independence, and opinions are awesome attributes for myself to possess, but I honestly feel like it intimidates and/or scares guys away.

I refuse to change who I am, but I thought some outside opinions and thoughts could help me in realizing what or how I could do things differently.

I find that the men that I meet tend to drift off and basically stop talking to me. I'm curious as to why this happens as well.

What do you think?

Girlie

Here is my response:


I don't honestly think that limping or scarring would scare most guys off. If it did, then you didn't want them anyway.

On the other hand, a couple of things that you write about - if I saw them in your profile online or if I noticed them in your character, I would never ask you out. Here's why -

1) "I think those are awesome attributes for myself to possess...." This is a basic mistake that many women make because Oprah tells them it is so. Philosophically, it goes like this: "Whatever makes me (the woman) happy will also make him (the man) happy. What I find attractive in a man is also what men find attractive in a woman."

Utter and complete Balderdash.

First, dating is not about you being happy with who you are - all self-esteem and feminist empowerment nonsense to the contrary. Dating, and building any kind of a relationship, is about making someone else happy. Love is about meeting someone else's needs - selfishness is about insisting that your needs are met. You reveal a self-absorbed outlook in the mere typing of the above sentence that reveals someone who does not have the character to build a long-term relationship with a real man. Sure, you can find somebody with a foot fetish or slave fetish that would just be into worshiping someone sexy - but there would never be a healthy relationship with a real man if you really think in the way that sentence indicates you think.

Secondly, it is NOT true that men find the same things attractive in women that women find in men. Women find independence, self-assurance, and strength attractive in men. Real men find softness, demureness, and a certain vulnerability to be attractive in women. Let me rephrase that - men find those traits desirable in the women who they want to have long term relationships with. Sure, we like loud, brash women too. But those are for short-term flings, if you get my drift.

2) "I refuse to change who I am...." You also, in refusing this, refuse to build a healthy relationship with someone else. Because change and accommodation is a necessary part of living with someone for 40-60 years.

Now, let me clarify for a moment. What I am saying has nothing to do with your status as a cancer survivor. Sure, we are all given the experiences that we are given by God/fate/whatever, and we can't run from who we are. So again, if someone came along and your status as a person scarred by cancer (or whatever) "scared them off," you are better off without them.

But on other matters - should you be willing to change the essential quality of who you are? Again, I realize that fool Oprah Winfrey and the feminism-lite that controls the non-thinking of most of Western culture implies (when it is not screaming it) that if a man is dissatisfied with any aspect of a woman's existence, he is "controlling" or "abusive" or he "ought to accept me [the woman - of course the same rule does not apply to women who want to change men, for in truth, society considers THIS quest to be quite noble] as I am."

Worse Balderdash than the previous.

Only if you postulate that you are perfect and therefore need no improvement or change in your life could it be true that a man mentioning, "Hey, kicking the pit bull may not be a great idea. Maybe you should control your anger." would be abusive or controlling in any way. But again, the feminist-oriented culture (read: utterly non-thinking culture) that is the West assumes that women's character and morality is innately higher than that of men, and therefore women need no change, while women desperately need to change all those deviant men.

But even if it were true that women have higher character than men (and it manifestly is NOT true), your attitude would keep you from building a healthy relationship because it gives off the vibe that you refuse to accommodate others. Love is not affection, lust, or attraction (though most in the ignorant feminist culture believe that it is). Rather, love is a settled commitment to meet the needs of another.

Meeting the needs of another necessarily implies that those who possess such a commitment are willing to change as needs change.

If I am allergic to seafood, then I would expect my significant other to lay off the fish when in my presence. And such an attitude is not "abusive," "controlling," or unreasonable in any way. If my significant other has an allergy to cologne, I will stop wearing it post haste, and it is not unreasonable of her to expect that I would do so. And on a thousand lesser matters, the only healthy relationships are those in which both parties accommodate each other constantly - at least on matters that do not touch on matters of right and wrong (on which matters, of course, there can be no accommodation).

Yes, if your conversations with men are anything like what you write, you are probably scaring the right kind of men away. Because if you really think consistently with what you write, you are very definitely NOT long-term relationship material.

Understanding Bad Boys

There are two kinds of men in the world - the marrying kind, and the non-marrying kind. The non-marrying kind tends to develop a reputation as being "Bad Boys," and trust me, they use their "Bad" both as a means of attracting and repelling women. Bad Boys, in other words, are labeled "bad" not only because they do things that seem inappropriate or cruel, but because they do the one ultimate thing that is guaranteed to flummox and frustrate women - be utterly unavailable for a real relationship.

All men, at a basic level, long to be in long-term relationships with women. But the Bad Boys never seem to get around to it - or if they do, their long-term relationships are punctuated with intermittent breakups, flings, or disappearances. It is important to recognize, when dealing with a "Bad Boy," that he is a "Good Boy" gone bad. Why does this happen?

In my 20+ years of counseling (and my 40 years of locker room conversations with men, some of whom are self-professed "Bad Boys"), I have found that almost every "Bad Boy" was a "Good Boy" with a horrific relationship with a woman in his past. Sometimes that relationship is with his mother. Sometimes with an ex-wife. Most often, something happens early on, as early as the teen or college years, with a girlfriend which solidifies a thought process that male and female relationships are an "Us v. Them" proposition.

Don't worry - Bad Boys will never sneak up on you. Ask him about his friends - all his married ones, he will tell you, are unhappy or on the verge of divorce. Look at the friends he travels with - it will be a rat pack of other bad boys. Listen to them talk - there will be lots of talk (indirectly around you of course) about "conquests." Ask him about his prior relationships - with a rare exception they will be very short, and very shallow. Is he in the practice of dating women who are much younger than he? Read: easy sex, little chance that he will be pressured for ultimate commitment. And in the event that he actually does form some sort of relationship with you, he will be astonishingly lacking in relevant tools for doing the hard work of building a life. He is likely immature, materialistic, brazenly lustful toward other women - perhaps to the point of infidelity, lacking in communication skills, utterly self-referential, and more prone to abandon ship than to invest time and effort when you and he are fighting.

And one of the dead giveaways that your guy is a "Bad Boy" is this: during the time you and he are merely "messing around" (or whatever he calls it), he won't exhibit a preference for female friendship. All of his friends will be his rat pack of male players. After he gets into a relationship with you - viola! - all of a sudden he is surrounded by a bevy of female "friends" that he insists it is necessary to keep in orbit. Think about that....

Can Bad Boys be changed? Sometimes.

Sometimes it is merely a function of growing up and realizing that all women are not as bad as that awful woman in his background. So with a lot of patience, a lot of self-sacrifice, and a lot of forgiveness, if you are the last woman standing when he wakes up and realizes that it is time to grow up, you win.

And sometimes it is matter of finding someone that they are secure to love. Women have incredible power over men - including the power to change them. I have seen the most outrageous players settled down and schooled into a white-picket-fence-and-cocker-spaniel-and-three-kids existence simply because they loved someone.

But recognize that this is the exception, not the rule. Nowadays, with societal expectations changing and the easy availability of sex, there can be little or not motivation for a Bad Boy to change - even at more "advanced" dating ages. And also realize this - even when Bad Boys do change, they leave a wake of broken hearts and emotional (and other) carnage behind them. In other words, you MIGHT be the one who changes him, but what are the odds?

Things You Should Never Say To A Guy....

It is rumored that women are better communicators than are men. I assure you, this is merely a rumor. I have been counseling for 20 years, and while it is true that women TALK more than guys, I would deny that women often SAY more than guys.

And frankly, some of the things that they say are destructive to a relationship. Rule number one with guys: say what you mean when you say it, and always be willing to tell the brutal, honest truth. Rule number two in communicating with guys - we hear what you say, not what you meant to say.

Want more constructive patterns of communication with guys? Try the following on... and NEVER say....

1) "You never listen to me."

Of course I listen to you - I just don't understand you. At a basic level, I am listening very hard for the information that I need to know in order to make changes, solve problems, or help you in the way that you need. It has never occurred to me that you would talk to me merely as a means of establishing intimacy. I am listening hard for something concrete that you want me to know - so when you are tying to bridge the gap and share your feelings, make sure that you couch your communication to me in something that I can KNOW, ACT ON, SOLVE, or DO so that I get what it is that I am supposed to get from our conversation.

2) "Is she pretty?"

Probably, or you wouldn't have even thought of asking. Do you want me to lie or tell you the truth? You better want me to tell you the truth - don't encourage the habit of lying. I know that the foundation of any strong relationship is the truth, but if you train me to lie, I am capable of doing that. Do you want to start a fight? Fine, but remember you are training me to believe that you can't handle the truth - that truth only insults you. Are you asking me what it is that makes me want you more than her? OK, then rephrase the question: "What are some of the things that make you want to be with me?" See how constructive that can be?

3) "Which outfit do you prefer?" or "Does this make me look fat?"

When you ask this, I actually think that my opinion matters. You know, I really do believe that it is a problem that women tend to dress to impress other women rather than to attract men, so if you ask me, I am going to tell you what I really think. And let's face it - men have a different outlook on women's clothes than does "Allure" magazine. But hey - I think that is a postive - because you are never going to DATE the editors of "Allure," are you?

4) "That's not nice."

Maybe not, but it is true - that's why I said it to you. In the male ethical heirarchy, it is OK to say something unpleasant as long as it is true. Nice doesn't enter into the equation. We are accustomed to dealing with behavior that is "not nice" by saying things that are "not nice." The whole idea is to motivate better choices in the future, after all. You wanna tell me that what I said was not true? Fine, that we can talk about. But if what I said was true, then "nice" is utterly irrelevant to what I am trying to communicate to you.

5) "I just want to be friends."

Actually, what you want is for me to stop asking you out. Say so. Give me the freedom to move on to somebody that is romantically interested in me. Don't try to keep me around as a safety valve - it is fair to neither of us.

6) "Nothing is wrong between us."

Balderdash. And this is the surest signal to me that you have given up on our relationship. When people don't even care enough about each other to fight anymore or try to work out their problems, there is no hope. Be honest with me - men are born problem solvers and we live to make things right. Where there is something wrong between us, tell me what it is and let's both work on a solution together. But be sure that you actually do want a solution... I don't want to keep arguments stewing forever in some sort of twisted power play. I want peace, stability, and the freedom to grow in our relationship.

7) "Sports is not important. It is just a game."

BUZZZ! Wrong answer! Sports is important because it reminds me of all the virtues that are necessary to being a man - teamwork, devotion, perseverance, loyalty, and reaching down inside of myself and finding strength when I have every reason to give up. Trust me - when I am forced to live in the presence of men being men, it helps remind me of what it means to be the right kind of man in every area of my life, from work, to home, to love.

8) "We need to talk."

No we don't. What we need to do is "solve a problem." When you say "we need to talk," I fear an endless, meandering soliloquy on your part in which I am lost in a labyrinth of emotions and conversations and details. Tell me, "There is something that is bothering me and I want to see if you can help me solve it." Again, now you are asking for me to do what's natural, and I am already on your side. But remember, men have difficulty establishing intimacy in a merely verbal exchange - so you may turn me off from the beginning if you make me anticipate the verbal equivalent of another afternoon in the principal's office.

9) "That looks cute on you."

For God's sake - I haven't desired cute since I was four wearing that Navy outfit. I am a man - I am a protector and a fighter. I work hard, play hard, and own a pit bull, for crying out loud. The surest way to get me to hate something is to associate it with the word "cute." Tell me it's sexy, manly, or accents that certain part of my body. Show me by your own response that it turns you on. But for crying out loud - leave "cute" in the dressing room at the mall with your sisters!

10) "If you don't _______, I'm leaving."

This is the surest tipoff that you don't love me. Say it, but expect me to hear it. And when I let you go, remember that it was YOU that left. Love, after all, is eternal....

Love's Ugly Stepsister

It ought to seem axiomatic, but unfortunately many things that are obvious are considered to be problematic by our culture.

When we invest ourselves completely in a relationship, and risk so much for the love and affection of one person, cutting ourselves off from the love and affection of every other person for the joy of rooting an eternal love with the one person of our choice, there is bound to be a desire to make sure that the other person is just as committed and just as "off the market" as we make ourselves.

It is commonly believed in our culture that jealousy is a bad thing. But in fact, exclusive, permanent, self-abandoning love is impossible without a tinge of jealousy.

Even in the Jewish and Christian scriptures, the chapter containing the Ten Commandments asserts that God is "a jealous God." Certainly these religious traditions would maintain that God is a loving God - yet his love is manifested in such a way that he can be jealous about the ones that he loves.

All of life is made up of yin and yang, masculine and feminine, positive and negative.

Love is without a doubt, when reciprocated, one of the highest positives in life. But it comes joined with a slight negative. When we commit ourselves to someone else, we take it upon ourselves to guard our relationship so as to ensure that they have committed themselves to the relationship as well.

This tendency to guard our investment in another and reduce the risk is called "jealousy."

Love is beautiful. Jealousy is the ugly stepsister of love. But they are always joined together. Jealousy is that thing in me that reminds the object of my love that he/she has a responsibility to not only NOT break the bounds of our relationship, but to not even APPEAR to break the bounds of the relationship.

Attempting to remove jealousy from the equation ultimately undermines our ability to love. The modern notion that love can exist without jealousy asks us to remove our expectation of both permanence and exclusivity from our romantic entanglements - and the romantic carnage that has been left in the wake of such unrealistic expectations indicates that we would be better off admitting that true love always condones, perhaps even appreciates, the contribution that jealousy makes to keeping people together.

Why Buy the Cow...

... when you can get the milk for free?, goes the old saw. I have to confess that, as a man, this proverb never really made a lot of sense to me. In my relationship with milk, for instance, consuming a freebie of the stuff at one of those sample tables at the local Sam's club never made me less likely to buy milk the next time I needed it. And while I know that the saying really doesn't refer to milk, I don't really think it works for sex, either.

People use the old "buying the cow" saying to indicate that, if a woman gives sex prior to marriage, then men lose interest in marriage. There are a whole host of problems with this theory:

1) It reduces men to mere consumers - not even connoisseurs! - of sex. In a classic case of pots calling kettles black, women who hold this philosophy engage in the most outrageous type of stereoptypical sexism.

2) Even if you accept that men are merely after sex, the "buying the cow" proverb seems to assume that men are incredibly stupid and inefficient. After finding a place where he can "get the milk for free," are we to assume that someone who is so neanderthal that his only desire is copulation is then going to walk away from the free and ready availability of what he seeks to go and find it once again elsewhere?

3) Men have "bought the cow" for thousands of years following premarital sex. Even as a cultural phenomenon, free sex alone does not seem to have the effect of decreasing men's interest in marriage. Think of the extreme and uninhibited free sexuality that prevailed from the 1960s till the mid-1980s (with the advent of AIDS) in the US. Men were getting milk for free in nearly every direction imaginable, yet busily and happily buying cows.

Nevertheless, women complain that men are not rushing to the altar in the way that they once did. They also tell stories of the proverbial ex-boyfriends: the boyfriend who won't get a job, but merely sits around playing with his Game Cube all day long. The boyfriend who never wants to settle down. The ex-husband who won't be involved in the lives of his kids. And the simply gorgeous guy who refuses to enter into exclusive relationships, but rather prefers to surround himself with a bevy of buxom, beautiful, "friends with benefits."

What then, explains the decline in marriages that has been going on in the United States of late? Men, while voicing the same loyalty to love, marriage, and family that they have always shown anecdotally, are avoiding the altar (or at least avoiding it the second and third times) as if it were the sole source of some fatal infection. Something is wrong, to be sure, but it isn't the alleged easy availability of sex.

Modern culture devalues everything that is masculine. The focus of political discourse, year in and year out, is "women's rights" or what we can do "for the children." Feminists claim that all sexual relationships between males and females are the equivalent of battery, abuse or rape - and have changed the law to reflect that extreme prejudice. Women proudly boast that they are juggling career, children, and home "all by myself" and that they are happy and fulfilled and "don't need a man in my life" (of course, neglecting to mention the thousands of dollars in child support and alimony that they receive each month).

Aggressiveness is bad - cooperation is good. Standing up for truth is bad - tolerance for every knuckleheaded scheme or opinion is good. A consuming thirst for excellence and innovation is bad - moderation (if not mediocrity) is good.

Everything that men consider to be of value, our culture has devalued. We are told that dads are optional - just be sure to send that check! We are told that husbands are optional - but wonder why men are not aggressively seeking a wife. We are told that excellence in career or academia is not nearly as important as "diversity."

And yet we wonder why some men opt out altogether.

Ever see the game he is playing on X-box? In that little cartoonish world, bravery, honor, and skill are rewarded.

That may be the only world that is left in which the masculine is not devalued.

If men are given the option - by our culture and the women in their lives - of either becoming effeminate in reality or maintaining their masculinity in some alternate universe, a certain number are simply going to choose to live out their lives on the internet and inside a controlled universe devised by a Game Cube. Is it right? Of course not.

But neither is trying to force men into becoming women....

Making Room For Love

Our feminized culture tells women that they are fully in control of the romantic process - that they can make all the rules, "be empowered," and dictate to men the terms on which they will be available.

But it doesn't quite work that way. It seems that somebody forgot to tell the men....

Take the issue of kids. For whatever reason (right or wrong, good or bad) it seems that with astonishing regularity, women end up with primary custody of kids after a divorce. When a woman then begins to date again, many women adopt the attitude that whoever dates her is going to simply have to make a boatload of allowances for her because she has kids. After all, she is worth it, she tells herself (and her culture tells her).

But while she is thinking, "He is going to have to understand that I can't go out often because I have child care issues." Or, "He will have to come to my house every day because I have kids." Or, "He needs to understand that some of our dates will involve him going to the ballet to watch little Andrea dance." Or, "He will just have to understand that the kids are going to go on dates with us." Or, "We can have just a nice a date sitting on my couch watching TV as we could going out alone."

He is thinking, "It's not my fault that she wound up with the kids. She asked for them, after all. Why should I be alone? Why should my romantic life be turned into an extended episode of Spongebob? This is a ROMANCE, not a free babysitting service. She should be spending time getting to know ME."

Or perhaps it is career. Our culture says to a woman, "You can have it all. Bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, be a good mom and a great lover too!"

But career women, like everyone else, have only 365 days in a year, each composed of a mere 24 hours. "Well," she reasons, "he will just have to understand that I am committed to my career and my kids first. After all, I have worked hard to get to where I am."

But he is thinking, "How can I build a marriage when I am third in line? Genuine romance should be a priority, not an afterthought."

Or perhaps she is convinced that, now that she has finished school, her kids are in junior high, and her career is on track, now she is ready - at age 35 - to start dating again. But understand, of course, she only wants to have "friends."

But he is thinking, "Why should I waste time, effort, and money on a woman who is not serious about building a relationship? After all, I want to get married and maybe have kids again. Can I invest the next 4 years on a chimeral friendship that may or may not turn into the marriage and family that I want?"

Or perhaps she is willing to try to build something long-term. But everything will be separate. Her house and his house. Her money and his money. Her kids and his kids.

But he is thinking, "Why would I risk the investment of another period of years and perhaps taking nuptials again with someone who is standing so close to the escape hatch?"

Love, romance, relationships - they involve two people. And it is no accident that, as our culture has foisted the erroneous idea that the female is the center of the relationship, the center of the family, and has the right to make all the rules, that men have run from relationships, become players, or simply left the dating game altogether.

In 2006, for the first time since such statistics were kept, there were more unmarried women in the United States than married women. Men are voting with their feet about these new arrangements.

Our culture is wrong. Women do not have the right to make the rules.

Love is about two people. It is about the rights, wants, dreams, desires, and fulfillment of two people - not one. It is about sacrificing self - not about insisting that everything revolve around our every notion.\

Got love?

If not, maybe it is time to start looking at whether priorities need to be adjusted to allow someone to both love and be loved by you.

Want love?

Better make room for a lover, then....