You are currently browsing the archives for July 2010

Purchasing a relationship on credit

  • July 21, 2010 at 3:07 pm

This afternoon, I was speaking with a friend about my dilemma with finding a qualified man—and we went back and forth on how I should be looking for someone highly qualified as a partner rather than lowering my requirements because someone is standing in front of me meeting a few of the things I want now, as opposed to long term. What we surmised is that I am looking to be with someone who fits a few things because no one fits all of them, which will essentially take me off the market because I will stop looking for anyone else, focusing my attention instead on the short-term fix.

Then I said, “It’s kind of like buying something on credit.” What I mean is that, if we can’t afford to pay cash, we will charge something and make payments. But, for a relationship, I really want to pay cash; I want to put 100% focus on that person and make sure it’s the person I want to “buy,” as opposed to making payments and possibly ending up with a debt I can’t afford later.

Yeah, I know; thinking about it now, it’s a little confusing to me too.

Once a woman (and maybe men too) gets to a certain age, it’s no longer easy to take one’s pick of the litter. There are fewer options out there, and if we want a partner—or a child—we have to pick something. With credit, we can make impulse buys! However, if we pay with cash, we have to save up the money and really be sure that the item is something we want to buy. We have to work harder.

I’m not sure what conclusion I have made about this, but it’s always good to have people call us on what we’re doing so we can see things from a different perspective. I’ve always been bad about saving up money, but I’m really good at putting things on Visa. It’s just the bills later that suck.

1 Comment

If love is a battlefield, sex is the optimal weapon

  • July 18, 2010 at 9:57 am

“Have you considered that you use a sexual front to protect yourself—and ultimately drive away the great man for you?”

Such was the tone of a nearly five-hour conversation last night with my new friend, M. I know that I have in the past used a shock tactic to “test” men and see if they pass (see Two tattoos and a navel ring). I would talk of my short tenure as a topless blackjack dealer, show pictures of me in barely-there costumes, and keep up the sex banter. I have toned that down quite a bit, believe me, because I knew that such an attitude was putting me in a box of “Wow, this girl is easy!” As mentioned in the previous blog, I am none of those things my audience assumed me to be. Sure, I was a topless blackjack dealer, but I think I had one drink, bantered with guests, and left at the end of my shift. I love to wear costumes, but it’s because I’m a bit of an exhibitionist. I barely drink and I never hook up with anyone. I’m typically back in my bed—alone—before midnight. I think like a man, and I find sex and male-female communications very interesting, so I talk about that stuff.

A similar “duh!” moment hit me last week at a networking training class. I’m an extrovert and very social. As such, I offered to network with any of the more wallflowerish types, saying I would happily “pimp them out.” The instructor then asked, “Of those who don’t like to network, who wants to go out with Amanda now?” Not one person raised a hand. In my eagerness to help, I had scared them all away. We are opposites, and I needed to approach the situation more at their level to make a connection.

This is what M pointed out to me last night. I am leading with a sex conversation, but the truth is I’m not looking for sex. I’m looking for a partner. A man who is looking for the same will not respond to the sex conversation because he’s looking for a heart conversation. If he doesn’t know me well—and doesn’t take the time to figure me out—he will make assumptions (really, who wouldn’t?) and run for cover thinking I’m a gold digger, player, or whatever. Of course, that’s not at all my intention and, sadly, one of the biggest reasons I’m single.

So I made a choice last night. Although I cannot change who I am at my core (silly, sexual, and outspoken), I will make a concerted effort to speak from my heart first. Those who know me well know that’s who I am, but I probably don’t already know that great guy for me. I’m going to leave the online sites because I can’t communicate there with men—who judge on looks initially online (like I do)—in the way I need to have them see who I am.

Who am I? I’ll share a little.

  • I love my son more than life itself. Just thinking about him brings a tear to my eye. He’s the center of my world.
  • I like Miley Cyrus. Really. Her music is fun and a guilty pleasure.
  • I have lived all over the world and used to be fluent in German. I love European architecture and miss being there.
  • I cross-stitch. I am a great baker. I like being a wife and taking care of a family.
  • I have an outrageously large collection of Ariels in my house and Wonder Woman at my office.
  • I would love to live in a converted barn in the middle of nowhere.
  • When I’m stressed, a hug from a strong man can take it all away.

On a quest to be feminine and be vulnerable, talking from my heart is a requirement. And it scares the shit out of me.

4 Comments on If love is a battlefield, sex is the optimal weapon

Great catch … but no one’s fishing

  • July 17, 2010 at 10:46 am

It may sound a little selfish to say this, but why can’t the “right” guys find me as a great catch? Don’t get me wrong, I really, really appreciate it when my married male friends and “just friends” who are guys tell me how wonderful I am and how any man would be lucky to have me. It’s just that it sometimes gets frustrating when all of the “wrong” men are interested in me. What I really want is a “man” who can appreciate the qualities I bring to the table, and will support me being the “woman” in the relationship.

For as long as I’ve been dating, I have been the man to the women-guys I’ve dated. On more than one occasion, people have told me, “Wow; I thought he was gay.” It seems that the old yin-yang idea really does hold true in relationships: there cannot be two men or two women; one has to step up (or step down, as the case may be). Now that I am choosing to step down and be the woman, I’m finding there are no real men out there—at least not that I’ve met.

No, I take that back. I do know four men I would consider real men. Two are married, one is in a relationship, and one doesn’t fall within my attractiveness parameters. I know a lot of men; in fact, most of my friends are men. With a good chunk of them, I find myself coaching them on how to be real men. But, honestly, it’s not their fault. I’m guessing that many men were raised in single-parent households by strong women who had to take care of things. They saw this woman tending to everything and, because no father was around, they set their expectations to acquire a woman like that. And they themselves became more of the feminine side of the yin-yang to balance out Mom’s male leanings.

I am in this situation now, as a single mom to Patrick. I am working on modeling how a man should behave, and I tell him that’s what I’m doing. I stand on the side of traffic, I open doors, and I take care of him. When he asks why, I tell him that he’s little and that’s my job now. But when he grows up, it will be his job to take care of his family. I’m not sure it will work, but I want him to understand why I’m strong and how I can be soft too. I would prefer to raise a man than a woman since I have a son.

So, if you know any “real men” out there who are attractive, fit, and secure with themselves, send them my way. I’m eager to see that more of them are among us.

2 Comments on Great catch … but no one’s fishing