The basic premise of being Quirkyalone is that you are -content- to be ALONE.

The basic premise of having an online dating profile is that you are -NOT- content with being alone.

Therefore, by having a profile and listing this self-identity, you mark yourself as either inconsistent, self-delusional, unable to know yourself well enough to know what you really want, the sort of person who aspires to things you can’t actually live up to, or just plain a royal pain in the ass. High maintenance is probably right on, but not in the “difficult to please” sense of having high standards. More likely it is high maintenance in the rabidly passive aggressive because what she said five minutes ago isn’t what she wants now and she doesn’t remember that she’s contradicting herself and will blame you for being unhelpful way.

This profile doesn’t say “I’ll shoot you down” it says “RUN”.

I’ve already telegraphed a bit of what my main complaint is but I don’t way to explore it in full before addressing it. I always want to address because after this book I want to analyze Rules of the Game in the same light. The contrast between the “dating advice for women” and “dating advice for me” in one key area has really jumped out at me.

And that key difference is strongly related to the competition marriage and how it manifests for men and women although I’ve never thought of it that way. However, it is very, very true and by phrasing it that way you’ve changed my view of men’s advice quite a bit. Instead of seeing it as just competitive on the female side I realize it wasn’t considering span of time: men do their competition much more before the wedding and women after.

I’ll also be getting to my ideas about the purpose of marriage towards the end as I analyze what I consider the missing half of this book. I know, understand, and don’t dispute your analysis but you know me. I tend to want to be more practical or seemingly practical as even I’m not convinced a more secular/materialist view is inherently more practical. It might just be easier to sell.

Even with all those weasel words I do think my idea is much closer to yours than the modern competition marriage.

[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.

Guys do the same thing, of course.

My wife is absolutely nothing like any list I ever had. We have almost nothing whatsoever in common. Heck, most of the time we don’t even want the same things out of Life. But we are deeply, radically committed to making a go of it Together as One Flesh and in the long run that makes us infinitely happier than any other couple I’ve known in any detail.

The worst part is, people take this Contest idea about marriage and carry it to the next stage when they start having kids. Not only is it a competition to see who can have their two perfect children first (while neither partner quits their career of course), but once the children are old enough to make various achievements, the next 22 years of their lives become a contest which the parents, not the children, win or lose.

That people write these kinds of books doesn’t shock me in the slightest. That anyone pays for them, or takes them seriously, and thus gives these people a career for their heinously distorted views on how to live life is cancerous.

Actually it’s worse:

It’s been an almost universal rule of civilization that girls became women simply by reaching physical maturity, but boys had to pass a test.

In Hymowitz’s world menstruation = womanhood. While the cynic in me would see that as explaining a lot about the behavior of women what’s amazing is just how demeaning to women that is.

Men become men by going into the military or building a house or getting a real job. Women do it by needing a tampon. It is both a ridiculously easy standard and a nastily exclusionary one. A woman who somehow was hormonally damaged and every fully went through puberty but because President isn’t a woman. A 13 year old who gets knocked up is.

a) The original book mentioned in the original article somehow has the impression that the “guy” phenomena doesn’t have a corresponding “chick” phenomena, or that if it does, men are perfectly content to date/bang/marry chicks just as they are perfectly content to date/bang/marry women. Nothing could be further from the truth. If Mr. Right is out there being a man, he isn’t looking to meet the woman who’s out with her BFF’s at a night club dry humping each other while smashed on appletini’s. He’s looking for Ms. Right. If females are going to demand men (adults) then females need to act like women (adults). The graph -pretends- to illustrate that girls are maturing into women simply on the grounds that they got a BA and [thus] have a job (which could be at Starbucks or Wal-Mart, but hey). But the entire premise here isn’t that “guys” are broke-ass moochers who are basically doing gender role reversal gold digging. The entire premise here is that cash rich young adults are refusing to grow up — well, if the chicks are better educated and better paid… who do we think this phenomena is impacting more? Exactly.

b) The same source pre-supposes that interest in something like Star Wars is a binary position, you’re either too grown up to ever mention it, or you’re COMPLETELY OBSESSED WITH IT. Grown men have hobbies interests and quirks that aren’t necessarily all that grown up. Let’s face it, the quintessential adult male hobby is playing golf. If you take a serious look at golf, there isn’t a whole lot there which screams “stable, reliable, mature person” except the -culture- of golf in the classic sense because only stable, reliable, mature men could AFFORD to play golf 30, 40, 100 years ago. Most real world men in their 30’s or 40’s grew up loving Star Wars — BECAUSE WHEN IT CAME OUT THEY WERE EXACTLY THE RIGHT AGE TO LOVE IT. Expecting men to -never- talk about it is like expecting men in their 60’s to have no fond memories whatsoever of Howdy Doody. The problem isn’t wanting to talk about Star Wars. The problem is wanting to talk about Star Wars to the exclusion of all else.

c) This also pre-supposes that chicks want to talk about something more important than re-runs of “Friends” which we all know is a lie.

d) The entire “where have all the good men gone” trope pre-supposes a fantasy universe in which womens’ liberation and chivalry aren’t based on mutually exclusive world views. Guess what ladies? Womens’ lib means you don’t need us anymore the way your Mother (or Grandmother) needed your Dad (or Grandfather) — which means I DON’T HAVE TO ACT LIKE YOUR DAD. Get over it.

e) The “Bill” that most chicks have? Is just like Bill Clinton — UNAVAILABLE. That’s why they’re pining for him, not bearing his children. The problem isn’t that I’m not good enough to live up to Bill, the problem is that part of what chicks WANT is a guy they CAN’T HAVE. Guys you can’t have are SAFE because you know from the outset the whole thing is doomed. There’s no fear, anxiety, or risk lurking in every conversation, interaction or decision. You can do anything you want, because it doesn’t matter, sooner or later it is all gonna burn. It is just a matter of when. You can pine for that guy all you want, but rest assured, the day he went “on the market” you would lose all interest.

f) If the only difference between a roommate and a wife is the sex, you’re thinking about wives wrong. Or roommates wrong. Or both.

[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.