Some of you might offer sex as the favored activity, but I’m excluding it from the discussion because the enjoyment of it is so dependent on your partner. If you can enjoy sex equally with every nameless person on the street, then you probably don’t need this book, at least not yet. You need to be exceptionally vigilant about safe contraception and maybe think about keeping a separate apartment for your liaisons. One sociopathic stalker can sap the fun right out of an otherwise fruitful life of casual sex, as can one STD. I’m not recommending this lifestyle choice, but I won’t condemn it either. Many men live like this, and I believe in fair play.
Just be careful.
Let’s go to back to the question of what gives your life pleasure and meaning. Ideally, we aren’t discussing a passing fancy (like that winter you learned to snowboard, then never picked it up again), but something that will be a comfort to you for the rest of your life. Discovering a source of bliss that has permanence is important, because here’s what will change from the present to the end of your life:
Everything.
Every aspect of your life—your friends, your job, your family, your lovers—will almost certainly change. If you’re married, your marriage may also change some day. (Your author can’t guarantee a 100 percent success rate, no matter how irrefutably brilliant his advice is. Your author’s modesty is beyond reproach, however.) Why do I bring up such a sobering truth? I do it to underline the importance of this period of unencumbered self-discovery. After the world has thrown its worst at you, what part of you will remain?
Answering the question about who you are makes answering the next question so much easier, namely, “Who should I be with?” Failure to do so will make you powerless to find the right person and can make you susceptible to all sorts of romantic lies.
Speaking of romantic lies…
Chapter Two
Fighting the Fairy Tale
The idea of “love at first sight” is so endemic to our culture that there may never be a generation of women who don’t grow up being told at a young age that it’s the way romantic love is supposed to occur. Women are encouraged to believe that lasting love is the product of pure romantic happenstance—seeing a handsome stranger across a room, sharing his glance, and in that moment, feeling with every fiber of her being that “he’s the one.” Fairy tales are rife with heroines falling at a glance for some prince or duke or other beautiful rich boy. In contrast, the story of Sleeping Beauty stands out by switching genders and having the hero prince be the one to fall in love at first sight.
Fairy tales aren’t the only fictional stories to promote this idea. The structure of nearly every romantic comedy is based on a similar principle. Poor, lonely career gal discovers that despite all her success, there is a man-shaped hole at the center of her life. Then, by some silly contrivance, she runs into the “man of her dreams.” This scenario is such an essential staple of the romantic comedy that there is a name for it in film critic circles: the “meet cute.”[ii] The term was created by famed film critic Gene Siskel to describe the way that “girl meets boy” in this type of movie.
It’s never enough for two people to meet at a party or a bar or through a mutual friend in the “meet cute,” like it happens in the real world. No, usually the girl quite literally runs into the boy. The most common method of conveyance in the “meet cute” is the pet who breaks the leash and, by fate, ends up knocking down Mr. Dream Man, who doesn’t even live in the neighborhood but stepped out of a cab moments before in search of blah blah blah…
It’s essential that Mr. Dream Man almost never appears because of any effort by the heroine. Girl doesn’t choose boy; boy is willed to her by cosmic mandate. This central theme is repeated in most fairy tales and rom-coms: no matter what her station in life, once “love” is introduced, the girl is essentially powerless. She’s powerless to choose, powerless to resist, powerless even to guide the direction her life will take from that point forward.
Broken down to its elements, “love at first sight” is no more rational than betting horses as your primary financial investment strategy. You would be giving an essential part of your future happiness over to pure, blind chance. The fact that it occasionally may lead to lasting relationships isn’t proof of logical behavior. It’s merely proof that some people hit the “soul-mate lottery,” while many others don’t.
Here is what “love at first sight” actually means for those who experience it:
“Wow, that guy/girl is really cute! I really would like to see him/her naked, and preferably in close proximity to my own nakedness!”
This antiquated idea occurs most often among the very young. I’ve encountered many married couples who were “high school sweethearts,” and they often describe their first encounter with the passionate excitement of a unicorn sighting. Their first meeting place is raised to almost mythological status, even if that place is a Taco Bell.
Take a look at the plot of the most prominent tale of “love at first sight,” Romeo and Juliet. Romeo first meets Juliet at a ball—a ball where, by the way, he has come because of his mad, unrequited passion for another girl. Yet as soon as he overhears Juliet vowing her “star-crossed” love for him (Translation: “I really would like to see you naked, but it would seriously piss off my folks.”), Romeo passions take a U-turn toward the new girl, and he proposes marriage to Juliet. They’re given a quickie secret marriage by Friar Laurence so as to enjoy a guilt-free consummation. (Translation: “I need to see you naked immediately, but I’d prefer to avoid the wrath of God.”) Because of their “love,” Romeo and Juliet become accomplices in the deaths of three relatives before they both die in a grotesque double suicide.
By the end of the play, “love at first sight” has led, either directly or indirectly, to the deaths of five people. If it were a person, the “love at first sight” theme (as presented in the play) wouldn’t be glorified as a “romantic.” It would be condemned as a serial killer and put to death for its crimes. From this point of view, it seems entirely possible that Shakespeare never intended this play to be a celebration of perfect, timeless love. Maybe Shakespeare meant the whole lurid affair to be a warning, one that goes something like this:
“Hey, young lovers. Take a deep breath before you run headlong down a blind path. You’re just as likely to end up dead upon an altar as in love for all eternity.”
Had Romeo and Juliet been transplanted to the modern age, their chances of staying together would’ve been lousy. Assuming they had survived the whirlwind of death and tragedy that surrounded their relationship, their marriage would’ve been unlikely to last. A study conducted by the CDC, entitled the “National Survey for Family Growth,”[iii] found that women who marry before the age of eighteen are literally twice as likely to be divorced within ten years as women who marry at the age of twenty-five or later.
According to the stage directions within the play, Juliet is thirteen years old when Romeo marries her. Although his age is never specified, it’s assumed that Romeo is just a little bit older, maybe sixteen. Not only would their marriage be unlikely to survive today, it probably wouldn’t outlive Juliet’s crush on Justin Timberlake.
Here’s another reason to mistrust the wild initial passion that often masquerades as “love” in new relationships:
Your body may be lying to you.
One of the most influential factors in determining romantic compatibility between two people is something you might not even be aware of. It’s called MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex), and it is a portion of your DNA that helps control your immune system. MHC is found in your saliva and your pheromones and is detected by both taste and smell. When you kiss someone, your body secretly tests the compatibility of your MHC with the other person. If it complementary, you’ve probably got a love connection. According to a report in Psychology Today[iv], the smell of MHC may be the second-most powerful factor in determining whether you find a particular man attractive. So a match should be a reason to celebrate, right? I
mean, who can argue with DNA?
Your method of birth control can.
It turns out that birth control pills basically short circuit this biologically-imperative exchange of interaction completely. Suddenly, you’re attracted not to men with complimentary MHC, but to those with MHC exactly the same as your own. Why is this a problem, you ask? We’re conditioned to choose a mate whose immune system provides something ours does not, in order to create a stronger immune system in our future children. Marry a person with the same MHC as yours, and you might face a rude awakening when you go off the pill. Your husband might no longer pass the kiss test. It’s such a significant factor in compatibility that some psychologists believe it a primary reason for the rise in divorce rates since the advent of the pill.
This doesn’t mean you should never marry a man whom you dated while on the pill. It just demonstrates a similar lesson to Romeo and Juliet: those untamed, passionate urges you initially feel for someone new aren’t a terribly good predictor of your future happiness together.
They may even be exactly the thing that’s leading you astray.
Chapter Three
Remixing Romance
Among the women I’ve known who repeatedly suffer through bad relationships with lousy men, most are quick to point out how “unlucky” they have been at love. Some even go so far as to pin the fault on love, as if the concept itself were to blame.
“Love is bullshit,” one of my friends told me after yet another terrible breakup. “It’s a rigged game that you can’t win. I’ve had better luck playing blackjack, and I don’t even really know the rules. At least blackjack has rules.”
My friend was right about love being a rigged game, but she was wrong to compare it unfavorably to blackjack. The rules of blackjack are set up to give an absolute advantage to the dealer, and thus to the casino hosting the game. Even the most skilled player in the world will always be at a statistical disadvantage over the course of time. The advantage is so great that 2011 marked the first time any casino in Atlantic City[v], New Jersey, had ever shown a monthly loss at the blackjack tables. It happened at the Tropicana, which lost $1.86 million in the month of April due to the record success of one player who had won an unbelievable $5.8 million at one of the casino high stakes tables.
Only one casino, in one month, in the thirty-two-year history of Atlantic City lost money at the blackjack tables because one guy had an incalculably, unlikely hot streak. Now, that is what I call a rigged game. Statistically, you will not, and arguably cannot, win.
Love isn’t like blackjack for several simple reasons. First off, people’s “luck” in love isn’t consistent from one person to the next. Some people have such better “luck” at love than others that it seems like they aren’t even playing the same game. The reason for this is simple.
They aren’t.
Think about the relationships you’ve been exposed to throughout your life—those of your parents, your relatives, your friends, people you work with, all the couples you’ve come into contact with. Now think about the successful relationships you’ve witnessed, the ones that lasted long after the others had dissolved. Have you ever asked the successful couple about their experiences before they met?
If you asked them together, you would probably get an answer along the lines of, “My old relationships were nothing compared to the way I felt about [insert partner name].” As true as this might be, it’s unlikely to be an entirely candid response. No one who has been successfully married (or in a great relationship) for many years is likely to talk about how deep, passionate, and sexually gratifying their prior relationships were in front of his or her significant other. Withholding this information is one of the reasons that they’re still together. (“Full disclosure” is a nemesis to lasting relationships, to be discussed later.)
To verify my point, ask people individually what their relationships were like before meeting their significant other. You’ll likely discover that this happy partnership isn’t their first. People who are that successful at the “game” tend to have a much more accomplished history playing it. They choose better partners and demand more of them. And their demands are more thoughtfully determined, because they have a better idea of what is necessary for their own happiness. Just as important, they show more consideration for what is important to their chosen partner.
Mia Hamm, the leader of the U.S. Women Soccer Team, was once asked how her squad had managed to remain the best in the world for so long. Her answer was simple.
“Success breeds success,” she said.
As it goes in soccer (or any game), so it goes in relationships. Small early victories lead to more substantial ones later on. By its very nature, any relationship that lasts forever will inevitably have been preceded by some that didn’t. However, the fact that those earlier relationships didn’t last doesn’t automatically mean they were failures. If you’re the least bit thoughtful and introspective (which you clearly are by choosing this wonderful book), you learned something valuable from each of your former so-called “failures.” You discovered something about yourself—your needs, your fears, your insecurities, your desires, and the nature of the love you’re capable of giving and receiving.
This awareness leads to a valuable point in our discussion, one that’s not terribly popular with those who prefer to think of love as the mysterious, unyielding force often found in soap operas and romance novels: love is rational.
According to two popular sayings, “love is blind” and “the heart wants what it wants.” Both sayings aren’t only wrong, they’re craftily malignant to real love, at least insofar as their common usage. Most often, shopworn words like these are employed to excuse foolish or even downright destructive decisions. For instance:
“Why did I go back to [Theoretical Shitty Boyfriend A], even after catching him cheating?”
“Love is blind.”
“Why do I keep choosing these selfish, narcissistic bad boys who never reciprocate my love?”
“The heart wants what it wants.”
The truth is that love isn’t blind. Love sees just fine, thank you very much. On the other hand, lust can’t see worth a damn. Lust is so blind that it could toss an anchor off a boat in the middle of the ocean and miss the water. As for that silly business about the heart wanting what it wants, it would be more accurate to say that the heart wants what it wants, but that sometimes the loins want something else a little bit more.
If your “heart” keeps telling you to choose the wrong kind of man, it’s more likely that a different part of you is to blame. Your heart may be telling you what it wants loud and clear, but it’s not what you’ve been choosing because parts south of there are yelling a little bit louder. Try to block out all that dumb, lascivious yelling and listen closely. Our culture loves to tell women that they’re the less rational gender. Men are the analytical sex, while women are more emotional. Do you know what says otherwise?
Science.
Research has shown that the minds of men and women are about 99 percent alike. The key difference lies in that other one percent, which says something extraordinarily contrary to what we’ve been taught. As it turns out, the males’ amygdalae (the brain structures that control our “fight or flight” reaction) are larger, but females have a larger frontal lobe, the part of the brain responsible for problem solving. In addition, females have ten times the amount of “white matter,” the connective tissue between different parts of the brain. Scientists speculate that this white matter is responsible for women’s superior ability to multi-task, as well as their superior skill with language.
This means you have a biological advantage over men in any argument. So the next time your mate tells you that women aren’t logical, tell him that the current scientific understanding of human brain activity instructs otherwise. Moreover, refuse to engage him in discussion until his gender evolves to catch up with yours. If it takes him a little extra time to understand what you’ve said, you shouldn’t be too hard o
n him. His brain is at a natural disadvantage to your own.
Speaking of disadvantages, one of them actually confirms a popular stereotype. It turns out that we men really are led around by our genitals, biologically speaking. Not only do our larger amygdalae increase our sexual drive, but the portion of our brains that controls sexual drive is 2.5 times larger than in the fairer sex. So not only are we unable to reason as well as you women can, but we’re also far more susceptible to our sexual desires, which are about as far from logical as you can get.[vi]
Not only are we men biologically less rational than you women, we’re also more easily led. So if you really want to ensure winning an argument with a man, wear a mini-skirt. He’ll never stand a chance.
This research underlines the extent to which the culture has repeatedly lied to you. You’ve been told over and over that you’re the emotional one, and that “love is blind” is your universal truth. Men (or at least the men I’ve known) have always known that expression to be a load of crap. We generally choose our mates with an established set of criteria that make sense, at least to us. We’re shoppers in the marketplace of love.
Which leads us to our next point…
Chapter Four
Buyers and Sellers
If there is one common theme to this book, it’s that the dating “problem” most people face is one of perception, not reality. If dating were a person, he or she wouldn’t be ugly. Yet many people describe dating as something (or, in our case, someone) so unsightly and vulgar that you wonder how dating gets any action at all.
Dating isn’t ugly but, like all of us, it can seem far less attractive from certain angles or in a certain light. A girlfriend of mine loves to take pictures whenever we go out, but she always insists on taking them at an angle from slightly above us. She explained that doing this makes one’s face look slimmer and more angular. Consequently, I look best in the pictures she has taken when we were out together, and it’s not because I suddenly get much better looking when she’s around.
Your Ex-Boyfriend Will Hate This Page 2