The March 2008 issue of The Atlantic has one of those sure-to-start-a-heated-discussion pieces: Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough. The author, Lori Gottlieb, is exactly my age: forty, on the nose. She’s a single parent, having conceived her young son with donor sperm. Lori begins:
About six months after my son was born, he and I were sitting on a blanket at the park with a close friend and her daughter. It was a sunny summer weekend, and other parents and their kids picnicked nearby—mothers munching berries and lounging on the grass, fathers tossing balls with their giddy toddlers. My friend and I, who, in fits of self-empowerment, had conceived our babies with donor sperm because we hadn’t met Mr. Right yet, surveyed the idyllic scene.
“Ah, this is the dream,” I said, and we nodded in silence for a minute, then burst out laughing. In some ways, I meant it: we’d both dreamed of motherhood, and here we were, picnicking in the park with our children. But it was also decidedly not the dream. The dream, like that of our mothers and their mothers from time immemorial, was to fall in love, get married, and live happily ever after. Of course, we’d be loath to admit it in this day and age, but ask any soul-baring 40-year-old single heterosexual woman what she most longs for in life, and she probably won’t tell you it’s a better career or a smaller waistline or a bigger apartment. Most likely, she’ll say that what she really wants is a husband (and, by extension, a child).
Gottlieb anticipates that this last sentence will arouse howls of indignation, but she pushes blithely ahead. She’s writing, it seems for younger women, and she’s offering what is only a slightly different spin on the by-now ubiquitous bromide that “feminism hurts women by suggesting that happiness is possible without a man.” I mean, it’s not as if there aren’t dozens of books and articles out there aimed at headstrong young women warning that if they don’t get hitched and start breeding early, they’ll miss their chance at the deepest and most satisfying source of happiness that the be-ovaried can ever know. It’s an old trope: the wiser older sister figure presenting her own story of woe as a cautionary tale. (And yeah, I know I sometimes do a similar thing here on this blog.) What’s interesting — and particularly galling — is Gottlieb’s hook: she urges smart young women to marry “Mr. Good Enough”.
By the time 35th-birthday-brunch celebrations roll around for still-single women, serious, irreversible life issues masquerading as “jokes” creep into public conversation: Well, I don’t feel old, but my eggs sure do! or Maybe this year I’ll marry Todd. I’m not getting any younger! The birthday girl smiles a bit too widely as she delivers these lines, and everyone laughs a little too hard for a little too long, not because we find these sentiments funny, but because we’re awkwardly acknowledging how unfunny they are. At their core, they pose one of the most complicated, painful, and pervasive dilemmas many single women are forced to grapple with nowadays: Is it better to be alone, or to settle?
My advice is this: Settle! That’s right. Don’t worry about passion or intense connection. Don’t nix a guy based on his annoying habit of yelling “Bravo!” in movie theaters. Overlook his halitosis or abysmal sense of aesthetics. Because if you want to have the infrastructure in place to have a family, settling is the way to go. Based on my observations, in fact, settling will probably make you happier in the long run, since many of those who marry with great expectations become more disillusioned with each passing year.
Bold emphasis mine.
Yikes. Based on this last paragraph of Gottlieb’s, her injunction to “settle” is a dangerous one indeed. Gottlieb is doing something very problematic, which is to confuse two different kinds of “deal-breakers.” Now, I agree that an “abysmal sense of aesthetics” probably shouldn’t be a deal breaker. I suspect halitosis is treatable. But there’s a world of difference between poor fashion sense and the absence of “passion or intense connection.” Yes, passion may fade over time. But trust me on this one: there is a world of difference between being in a marriage in which the passion has cooled and one in which there was never any “heat” to begin with. Expecting sexual heat to endure (without any increase in effort) for years is unrealistic; settling for a marriage where there isn’t even any memory of fire and passion is, I think, too great a compromise.
I have some experience in this regard.
My third wife and I “settled.” When we met (on Matchmaker.com!), we were remarkably compatible. I was a new Christian; “A” was also an adult convert. We were both in academia, of similar age and from similar family backgrounds. The conversation between us flowed easily from our first date forward. “A” was finishing her doctorate at Fuller Seminary here in Pasadena, immersed in a evangelical culture that frowned on pre-marital sex and strongly encouraged marriage. Most of her friends were already married, and many had children. A was eager for marriage. I had already been divorced twice, of course, but those divorces had been “pre-conversion.” As a “new creation in Christ”, I longed for a different kind of relationship. A seemed to fit my bill, and I hers.
There was one problem: a lack of heat, of passion, of intense attraction. Oh, neither of us thought the other hideous. But there was never, ever, a moment of “I want to rip your clothes off right this second” between us. Having had a very colorful sexual past before my conversion, I was at a point in my life where I had little faith in chemistry. I’d made decisions throughout my teens and twenties based largely on desire; now I was determined to make one on the basis of spiritual compatibility. A, whose pre-conversion past was not entirely dissimilar, felt the same way.
A. and I were engaged within a few weeks of meeting; evangelical Christians tend to move faster through the courtship stage. Our families were thrilled; we were told over and over again how “perfect” we were for each other. We had similar interests, similar politics, similar cultural vocabularies. We were polite and kind to each other. A and I never raised our voices when we argued, and our arguments were few. And once married, behind the bedroom door, there was no heat, no chemistry, no intensity. I knew something was missing, but I was willing to settle. My logic was simple: I’d had my wild experiences in my youth. Now I was in my thirties, a believer, a youth leader and a future (I hoped) father. It seemed right to trade in passion for affection, to trade in heat for kindness. A and I had a lot of kindness in our marriage.
As we hit our first anniversary, and started trying for a baby, the tension over this absence of chemistry grew and grew. We were still unfailingly polite, and being the highly educated and verbally dexterous folks we were, we talked endlessly about ways to “generate more intensity.” All failed. One day, A said to me: “Hugo, if I had any memory of once having really, really wanted you, then I could build on that. I could nurture that flame back into a fire. I’m so sorry, there never was a time when I felt that for you.” I wasn’t offended, or even hurt — because I felt the same way. In a calm, sad voice I told A that I felt the same way. “We settled too much”, she said. And I couldn’t help but agree.
It was A who asked for the divorce. Initially, I tried to save the marriage. I knew that the sexual aspect of our relationship was hopeless, but I was desperate not to be divorced a third time. I’d constructed a “once was lost, now am found” narrative for my life — and getting a post-conversion divorce would spoil the dream I had for evangelical domestic bliss. I was willing, or thought I was willing, to stay in a kind, affectionate, intellectually compatible and passion-free marriage. A, bless her heart, was a psychologist and a feminist. Her understanding of the former told her that sooner or later, if we stayed married, the absence of passion would lead one or both of us either into an extramarital affair or intense resentment. Her feminism told her that she deserved to not settle, not on something as vital as attraction and heat. She was willing to put up with my various neuroses; she was not willing to live her life in a sexual relationship that didn’t even have the briefest history of a flame.
We argued only once about whether to get a divorce. On that day, A said to me: “Hugo, within a year or two you’ll thank me for leaving.” I told her she was wrong, but of course, she was right. I don’t blog much about my wife today, but I can say without hesitation that in this fourth and final marriage, the passion and intensity is present. We’re compatible in many other ways as well. I am happier than I ever was with A; I would never have had the chance to be as happy as I am had A not given me the gift of demanding a divorce. When I, clinging to evangelical teaching about divorce and my own fantasy narrative, insisted that living without “heat” was an acceptable level of settling, A had the grace and the insight to see that we both deserved better.
I don’t know much about where A is in her personal life today. After our divorce, which was as amicable as everything else in our short relationship, she moved out of state and we have no contact today. I pray, however, that she has found what she wanted, needed, and deserved. I will always be grateful to her for releasing me so that I could I could be with someone who craved my body and for whom I ached in return. A. gave me a great, great gift.
My third wife taught me an important lesson about “settling.” It’s one thing to marry someone whose politics you find inexplicable, or whose taste in movies is wince-inducing. (My fourth and final wife loves “Dirty Dancing.” ‘Nuff said.) It’s another thing altogether to build a partnership with someone who doesn’t inspire deep and intense longing. Yes, over time that longing may fade. It will certainly fluctuate. But the memory of passion can be a reliable fuel to sustain a marriage; if even that memory isn’t present, there’s probably trouble ahead.
There’s much to be said for compromise in intimate relationships. But wisdom is knowing the difference between a “have to have” and a “would like to have”. And I think the collective experience of a great many people is that at least a period of powerful, mutual, sexual longing falls into the first category. That has certainly been my experience, and as long as I live, I will be grateful to my penultimate wife for insisting that we “not settle.” In a small but undeniable way, the happiness I have now would not be possible without that insight on her part.
For about a month after my break-up, I was miserable. Yet, for the past two months, I have been doing remarkably well. That kind of bothered me. It didn’t make any sense. I am usually emotional about practically everything, so it disturbed me that I wasn’t feeling as bad as I was about no longer being engaged. I actually felt good about it. After a lot of reflection, discussing the details of what really happened with my closest friends, and reading about this article over at Pandagon the other day, I am starting to realize why. I won’t go into a lot of details, but let’s just say that I am thankful that I didn’t settle. I don’t think I ever will, either.
Hi Hugo. I subscribe to the Atlantic, and I read through that train wreck of an article thinking, “it can’t get worse” (but each paragraph did) and “WHY did the magazine print this? It’s the Atlantic, for crying out loud! It used to be good reading!”. I “settled” (smirk!) on thinking that every man who has ever dated Lori Gottleib who happened upon the article had the same thought, Daaa—aaa—mn! Sure am glad I dodged that bullet!”
I’m a forty year old single mother too. Ain’t no way in hell you could get me to settle. At gunpoint, even.
Way back when, in what feels like another lifetime ago, I got married at the age of nineteen. I was in love. He was “settling” (I didn’t know that at the time). The woman he really wanted had dumped him (gently, from her perspective) a couple of years previous, when he was attending college in another state. I was her polar opposite in just about every way measurable; at the same time, I was strikingly similar to my (ex) husband. And he didn’t like himself, his family, his background, nothing.
I’ve wished a lot of evil on people who’ve done me wrong, but I wouldn’t have wished that experience on anyone. He tried to drink his resentment away. It didn’t work. Quitting work and school didn’t work either. Verbal abuse which escalated to a predictable nightly schedule didn’t work. Physical violence eventually did—but that took time too. Not that he was happy about that, either. He was still filled with rage that I wasn’t her, and his own failure to mold me into her.
So, reading the article with my experience of being the settle–ee was alternately anger-inducing and pain-inducing. She needs a shrink, pronto. I couldn’t get past the how could you do that to another person, this “settling”?!. Because I guarantee you, no matter how little time she spends with her future settled-upon husband (the saving grace being that with the buzz this article is creating, she’d better be fluent in a foreign language to find one), he will know. You can’t hide that level of disappointment, and you can’t do it over time.
Seriously. This isn’t just selfishness. She’s clinical.
Oh, I didn’t even realize Pandagon had done it… this is what happens when you’ve been out of blog-land for three weeks.
You can be sad at losing a dream, and at the same time, happy at being free to pursue something richer, and deeper. That’s not a reflection on you or your ex, but an acknowledgement that when we end something that needed to be ended, we often get a sign that we were right to do it.
And La Lubu, amen — and thanks for sharing your story.
Don’t forget the little coda at the end, where Gottleib says that if you end up divorced, it’s no biggie because you can get child support and stuff. WTF?!
i’m beginning to learn the art of not settling. it’s freeing because then i spend more time on people who are worth my time, but it’s sad because i have to pass on a lot of seemingly decent guys.
thanks for your comments. they help.
I think she’s somehow imagining relationships as almost completely abstract. In theory, it might be nice to have some pleasant companion with whom to household and raise kids. But in real life, both partners are full human beings, and dealing with another human being day in and day out is a big fucking deal. You have to really really dig them to make it worth it at all.
I agree with what you’ve said, Hugo, but I almost wonder if we’re just reading her wrong.
My mother has said a number of times that she wishes she had accepted my father’s marriage proposals. He was an abusive partner and she didn’t love him, but her semi-regret of not marrying him has nothing to do with love. It’s about fitting into society and having a more traditional or accepted experience. She never received child support or equitable distribution of their assets when they did eventually break up (after ten years together) and she regrets that. Things are slightly different nowadays because of common-law marriage laws, but marriage does make many things easier in life. My mom doesn’t really, truly regret her decision, but sometimes she thinks she should have chosen a more conventional path.
I think much of Gottlieb’s article is simply about wanting to fit into traditional/normal/accepted society and has little to nothing to do with love.
Except that she’s telling other women how much happier they’ll be with a guy who can open jars for them, and who’ll send them a few bucks if it doesn’t work out. That’s not really about a longing to fit in.
I think Elaine’s right in that the Gottlieb seems overly concerned with fitting in in society in which hetero monogamy is the norm. I wrote at my place that, since she idolizes Will and Grace, she should have moved in with the other single mom she picniced with. If we can escape social norms, we can find new means of happiness. One size does not fit all.
I didn’t find passion until I was 35 with two kids. And while I do find passionate relationships somewhat more chaotic, I prefer the intensity to the mediocrity of a more practical union.
I think Elaine’s right in that the Gottlieb seems overly concerned with fitting in in society in which hetero monogamy is the norm.
Except that in the article, she speaks more passionately about the benefits of divorce than the benefits of marriage. She’s completely unconcerned about what it takes to actually make a marriage work, but she’s real keen on some extra household income, and extra pair of hands for household and child-raising chores, and no-expense babysitting for some occasional alone time. (Mind you, I don’t fault her for feeling strung out with the extra demands of single parenting. It’s her proposed mercenary solution that’s messed up. That’s a shitty thing to do to another human being.)
I like what Tam said up above; that living with another human being day in and day out is a big fucking deal. Take a moment to remember your last family holiday gathering, or family reunion. Think about how easy that was for a weekend, after the first blush of “it’s so good to see you” wears off. And those are the people you’ve known your whole life.
The thought must have occurred to her, else she wouldn’t have filled in with all the nifty information on how settling is still the perfect solution, because there’s always divorce court. Win-win, right? *smirk* You get a breadwinner who plays with the kiddos, and with any luck you won’t see him often because of work schedules; you can tolerate him and maybe even grit your teeth and tolerate some occasional (blessedly rapid) sex…or you throw in the towel, and still end up with the aforementioned extra cash and babysitting.
One of those scenarios comes with societal brownie points. The other doesn’t. She’s open to either, and from the tone of her descriptions of both scenarios, she leans heavily towards one of ‘em, and it isn’t the one with the traditional approval.
A sounds like a very wise person.
they’ll miss their chance at the deepest and most satisfying source of happiness that the be-ovaried can ever know.
If only this were the musing of one crackpot ‘journalist.’ I used to get that crap all the time from some family friends. I make a point of avoiding them now.
I have to agree the woman is crazy. I am so glad I did not settle for Good Enough. You need the passion and love. You also need someone who respects you. Where is the respect when you settle? Look at La Luba’s story. You can’t respect someone you “settle” for because they will never be “good enough.”
I had to wait 36 years for Mr. Right, and he was worth every minute of the wait (he waited 38). Neither of us settled, and both of us are glad.
What if I’m her “good enough?” That thought terrifies me and men everywhere.
I appreciate Hugo’s candor about longing for another’s body. Of course, physical attraction alone cannot sustain a relationship . . in LSAT lingo physical attraction is necessary, but not sufficient.
***And now for a tie-in with the older men/younger women discussion!***
Hugo’s post got me thinking.
I wonder if “not settling” is a HUGE driver in the older man/younger woman thing. I have a friend/guitar buddy who, at 60, is the same age as my dad. Steve* has been divorced for several years and is starting to date again. He tells me that he’s not physically attracted to most women in their 50s/60s. He complains that the few women in that age range that he finds physically attractive are either married or not Christians. He’s physically attracted to many women in their 20s, 30s, and 40s, but he feels uncomfortable dating someone under 40 because his daughter is in her 30s. He has female friends who are between 55 and 65, but he says he is not physically attracted to them and that he can’t force himself to feel physical attraction.
I’ve pointedly asked if he is seeking out younger women because he is afraid of aging. I’ve suggested that he consider dating a particular friend of his who is in good shape and really nice. I’ve also suggested that an attraction might build. His response is that he’s always been immediately physically attracted (or not) to a woman and it would be a lie to even attempt to date this friend.
. . . It’s not that hard for a slim, good looking, guitar riffing, wealthy man of 60 to find women in their mid 40s to date. He’s actually had women in their 30s approach him and express interest and he’s turned them down even though he’s found them attractive. (I really don’t think that he is interested in a woman only for her body and he’s morally conservative.)
I asked him about attraction. He said that he was physically attracted to women in his peer group up until about the age of 50 and then . . . he grew older, but his attraction didn’t progress. (I’m sure this also happens the other way around and that there are 60 year old women who are not physically attracted to men their own age.) If Hugo’s right, maybe it’s good that Steve’s “not settling.” ?????
//since she idolizes Will and Grace, she should have moved in with the other single mom she picniced with. If we can escape social norms, we can find new means of happiness. One size does not fit all.//
One of the reasons Will and Grace DIDN’T settle down together was, of course, because Grace finally met someone. They were about to have a baby together, and then she met a guy and ended up marrying him. This caused a rift in their relationship for awhile, as you can imagine it might — the same might happen when you “settle” with someone you’re not attracted to (or who isn’t your sex of preference). If one of you meets someone, then the arrangement is off suddenly! That’s why it’s not fair to either party to settle.
Dave, an interesting point about attraction and the older men/younger women theme discussed here so often.
I think you’re conflating two different things: culturally conditioned attraction (the sort that says that young, blonde, narrow-waisted and big-boobed is ideal) and sexual chemistry.
Most folks who’ve been around the block know that you can meet folks who are visually stunning — but who don’t turn you on in the slightest. The reverse is also true; most of us have experience being passionately aroused by someone whom our peers find unappealing. Chemistry is a strange beast, and it isn’t bound by age or culture in quite the same way.
Point is, I do think older men who say they “don’t find women their age appealing” have likely allowed their sense of desire to be entirely corrupted by the culture. That doesn’t mean they should be hot to trot for all of their peers, of course.
Hugo, I don’t know that it’s “corruption” so much as their attraction being to youth rather than hair color, breast size, etc. What’s turning them on is the fact that the woman is young.
DaveV, I think your friend Steve, is attracted to youth, because he is no longer young. He finds excuses for his not being physically attracted to his peers or women close to his own age. And the women who he is attracted too are either unavalable or “not Christian”, which provides him with a convenient rationalization for his behaviors and attraction to younger women. He is focusing on superficialities, mainly that they look old and so remind him that he is getting older to rationalize his fear of ageing. I have to wonder if the “not Christian” excuse would pose an obstacle if the women fell within his desired and acceptable age catagory of under 50. I think a 40-something or even under forty-something woman would more than likely feel that she is “settling” for a man his age, despite his appearance, if they feel age discriminated against by their own peers.
Likewise, even pointedly asking someone doesn’t mean that you will get an honest answer. How many people do you know would outright say that they don’t like women their own age, because they remind them that they are getting older and they can’t deal with that. No one is that honest or truthful with themselves and rarely with others. Yet if you pay close attention to his words, you will find the answer there. He may not be interested in women only for their bodies, but he is interested in them for how they make him feel. And in this case having a woman much younger 15-20 years will make him feel less older. It is all about him, not about them.
Hugo, I think that’s a very important point about sexual chemistry and I think it’s overwhelmingly ignored by our culture. I think the cultural narrative is very much that everyone is supposed to be attracted to the same people, that if you don’t find someone objectively stunning attractive there must be something wrong with you. We can see in real life that it isn’t true, that people are attracted in ways that have little to do with objective factors but …
I think Elaine Vigneault has several good points in her article but they get so lost among the exaggerations and the utter inability to imagine that other people are not like her that it’s hard to see them. I do think a lot of people have an ideal picture in their mind of whom they want for a partner and maybe do need to understand that they will never find their ideal. If such a person wants to get married then yes, they have to settle. Hopefully the person they’re settling for won’t be looking for something different. Affection, a desire for companionship and a teammate in your life aren’t a bad basis to build a life on as long as you’re prepared to put in a lot of work, love often grows in marriages like that. (Though I agree that some passion is absolutely necessary, sex is too important to human beings). I don’t understand why Elaine had to make it sound like settling for someone you didn’t like at all was a good idea though, she obviously doesn’t really believe it or she’d be married.
I thought the article was doling out seemingly useful perspective for the idealistic youth. The older you get, the more ossified in your ways you become, making compatibility more challenging by the year. Couple this with the decreasing availability of mates as they are taken off the market due to marriage or encumbered with “baggage” such as exes and children, and the likelihood of finding a life partner with whom you are not “settling” becomes lower by the year. Not impossible, just lower.
Hugo, I agree with you that sans “spark”, a marriage will quickly degenerate into roommate with children situation, which is generally unfulfilling for most.
But I believe that the author’s point is just that seeking perfection or an inordinately high standard is potentially harmful in the long run if your goal is to have a family (in the traditional sense). Coming up on my twenty year anniversary, I have had my share of idealistic, blissful years with my spouse. I have also had my share of difficult, bitter, and painful periods in which love, respect, work, and perserverance kept us together, but both of us would at that time more than likely had visions of “settling” for someone else.
I believe the author is saying that, if relatively early in a relationship with an individual who has at least some level of merit, you find yourself counting the ways in which he or she is not ideal, don’t assume you are settling just yet. You may find that a shared history of working through these things prior to marriage may strengthen the bond and enable you to build a relationship that transcends how many check box traits you are looking for and whether or not the ones that are missing are enough to officially call the arrangement “settling”.
MT - did you read the actual article? Because she’s not just talking about “don’t have ridiculous standards” or “don’t give up on somebody if they’re not perfect immediately”. It’s a long blather about how it’s OK to settle for somebody because they’re available and can, like, help around the house. Worst of all, it isn’t even about “settling” to have a solid marriage and raise a family; she wraps up with an exhortation that if you get divorced, no worries because lots of women get child support.
I read the article and I wished that I didn’t–what a depressing, cynical message. Sounds like she’s burned out on the demands of single motherhood and confusing being alone with loneliness. And it sounds like she wants a partner to share the financial burden. It’s common for someone to reach their 40’s and assess their choices and path, but there’s something about what she writes that I feel like I want to scream. One can choose a mate for emotionally unhealthy reasons, convincing themselves that it was acceptable and then find themselves in a very lonely and isolating relationship.
I found this blog, thankfully after reading the abysmal article. I feel the discussion has teetered into a discussion about attraction, which is a fragment of Ms. Gottlieb’s focus. However, it’s not the whole piece. One tricky element is that Ms. Gottlieb doesn’t really define the dealbreakers. The fact that she upholds marriages to “gay men…”men who the women don’t want to have sex with” and “don’t have intellectual spark with (my words)”" over singledom is entirely telling. I am 35 and single and have trouble picturing myself descending into Ms. Gottlieb’s black world. Exhibit A) Ms. Gottlieb is a New Yorker and in the entertainment/journalism field. She comes from a rather twisted context, in which men are usually incredibly narcissistic as are the women. Their standards are strange, not quite human, maybe not typical of the rest of the coun†ry’s. New York is truly its own place, much like San Francisco, and is rumored to be chock full of people in relationships looking over each other’s shoulders for someone “better.” I wonder if in response to this hypercompetition over finding a mate she reversed to an opposite extreme. Maybe she published the article as a perverse joke even? Exhibit B) I have tried, on numerous occasions to “settle.” The men always sense it, and start to hate you a little bit for it, and believe you me it starts to wear. One “ideal” guy started to get really mean to me (and I was doing an Oscar worthy performance!) in this scenario. I’ve seen it happen more than once, in other friend’s marriages Exhibit C) I do believe people can “grow” to love each other or fall in love with each other, if they treat each other with respect, akin to Fiddler on the Roof. Her article though implies perhaps that one needn’t possess complete respect (the thought of hugging him sends chills down your spine? but you enjoy his company? heh?) to make things work. Lastly, yes gang, I’ve seen people marry happily in their 40s and 50s. Maybe not a lot, but for sure not if we’re all unhappily esconced in these sham marriages.
Good point, mochaleet.
Settling isn’t just about seeing past a guy with no hair and a beer gut. I’m engaged to a tall dark handsome man who is kind, patient, loves my family, thinks I am hilarious and wonderful, and makes tons of money to boot. But I feel like I am settling, because I know I’m not totally in love with him. By the way, the short, cute, city maitenance worker with the muddy cowboy boots and vulgar sense of humor that I DID totally fall for didn’t fall back. I think if women are picky about anything, it’s about the feeling they have in thier hearts about a guy, and not wanting to settle for anything less than something that feels like love.
Thank God some of you have seen the same as me.
As a man, I find the article rather depressing. Is this what women want? A sucker who provides labour and money? A tool for the upbringing of kids, completely dispensable and replaceable?
I think the writer is too extreme.
1) Before she had a kid, she was smoking hot. See for example her picture in http://www.match.com/msn/article.aspx?articleid=8823&menuid=6&lid=429
So she became picky and rejected a lot of good prospects. “I also dated someone who appeared to be highly compatible with me—we had much in common, and strong physical chemistry—but while our sensibilities were similar, they proved to be a half-note off, so we never quite felt in harmony, or never viewed the world through quite the same lens.” Apparently she was looking for a clone or for the infamous Prince Charming of tales. Too bad that tales are fiction.
Because she was so hot and young, she didn’t bother to grow up, because there were always guys who are willing to support their childish attitude only because she was so hot. She only thought of HER but not the other person. Pure narcissism.
She tought this would last forever. She thought that a steady supply of guys will always be knocking on her door, so she could wait for the man who was perfect while having a great time meanwhile.
2) Then, when their biological clock was ticking, instead of marrying a good guy, he kept on dreaming of Mr. Perfect. So she thought she was able to be a single mom and, after that, meeting Prince Charming. Definitely, she had not grown. She believed the world revolved around her.
3) Now that the consequences of their actions are chasing her, she wants a quick fix, like a spoiled six-year-old. She wanted a child but she didn’t realized that children are not dolls but people who require a MAJOR work and commitment. She aged quickly, as she admits. See a picture of her after her baby here http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/searchview.php?id=17111
She discovered that attracting alpha guys is harder when you are a single mom. Really? What a discovery! I would never have thought so.
So she is desperate to find somebody (just anybody) who brings a paycheck and work to raise her child. A Walking Wallet and Baby-sitter. Like when she was hot, it is only about HER. She has not grown up and don’t have empathy about the guy. Even she claims that if things don’t work out, she will divorce and get child support. She is older but she hasn’t developed empathy about other people. It is only about ME!ME!ME!
This is a very common between hot girls. They don’t age well. They develop narcissistic attitudes when they are hot and they are devastated when their looks fade and the world is not willing anymore to put up with their crap. So they want to be rescued in order to avoid growing up. Rescued by a sucker like the one Ms. Gottlieb is looking for.
Kiss kiss, Professor Hugo.
Of course, the problem seems to be, given the fact that we are inundated with the media images of “perfect” — “hungry all the time” being admitted to by gorgeous actresses like Julianne Moore notwithstanding — and that men are so much “more visual” — although then I don’t know why you all can’t see the mustard in the refrigerator when it is right in front of you — where does that leave us fat, ugly girls who are not platinum bimbo blonde and a size 00?
Yeah, finsalscollons, and where might these girls have gotten those ideas that you’ve so eloquently laid out?
It couldn’t be from having men like you — and here, I quote you: “she was hot, she was young and hot, she was smoking hot” — slobbering and drooling and moaning over them and tripping over yourselves to please them for that first part of their hot lives, could it?
Actually, what strikes me about the Jewish Journal article that finsalscollons links is more the fact that she claims to have only asked a guy on a date once in her entire life. I’d think, before you consider “settling,” you might try asking multiple guys you’d be more than willing to have on actual dates. But, sadly, women are rather frequently encouraged to be more willing to lower their standards than to make an explicit move.
Mind you, I’m shy myself, so I only rarely made the first move, back in the day when I was single. But the times I did beat the times I tried settling for dating someone I didn’t like all that much. And I’m glad I didn’t settle for very long or take the settling too far.
And the times I didn’t ask, and instead hoped for the guy to read my mind? I’m not going to argue that that’s what women in general should do, because it’s unfair to put a man on the spot and make him come up with a way to tactfully reject you, or something. It was just me being shy and introverted.
Not at all, littlem.
I see that your argument about me is an “ad hominem” attack. You are angry against the world because you are not slim and then tell me things about me without knowing me.
In fact, when I said Lori Gottlieb was “smoking hot”, I was only saying that she was very attractive for most American men, so she was able to get all the attention she wanted and more (As she says in her article, getting a boyfriend was never a problem). Saying “hot” is the most convenient way to say that, because you don’t want to explain things with a lot of detail in a post.
Personally, I don’t find it Gottlieb attractive. I don’t like women so skinny (I don’t like fat and ugly either, sorry). I don’t like to hug a lot of bones. In fact, Gottlieb had anorexia, a disease which was unfortunately suffered by my sister, who I love a lot. Her thinness is unnatural. But this look seems to be very popular between American men.
Anyway, I haven’t moaning over a woman since I was 13 years old. If they want an attention fix, it is their problem.
where does that leave us fat, ugly girls who are not platinum bimbo blonde and a size 00?
The same place where men who have not a good income are. Being single. Please, stop making personal attacks to other people because they speak the truth and you do not want to hear it.
Amazing post, Lynn. I agree with you.
I am a shy guy and believe me, to ask a woman has always been a torture. Making you exposed to rejection is not easy either for men or women. Neither men or women like to initiate.
A thing women don’t understand how hard is initiating for men. They think we have a special chip in the head, so it doesn’t hurt when you are rejected. Not true. I have seem women treating me like a shit only because I dare to talk to them. Not fair.
Thank God, after 30s, your testosterone recedes and you are not willing to pay the price of humilation, only to talk to a woman. So you don’t initiate. Amazingly, these ages the balance of power shifts and women are making themselves available and throwing lots of non-subtle signals. But you get jaded of the game. I prefer to focus on my hobbies. I haven’t been to clubs for years.
Anyway, if the man doesn’t initiate, there is no game. But these strategy harms women. As you say, women can’t choose the best prospects, only those who talk to them. So it is a drawback for women who end up having boyfriends worse than they would have if they initiated.
Moreover, the men who are more willing to initiate, are “players”. So women end up with these guys, who are willing to say all the lies women want to hear. These “players” are having all the game, while nice and shy guys (the ones who would make good husbands) get rotten.
But the second part is that a player has a skill to meet women. So, why the hell has he to stay with one? Thinking a player will stay with a woman who he likes is like thinking a woman would stop buying clothes because she has just bought a dress which she likes. It is not going to happen.
So, when the player leaves and the woman is heart broken, she says “Where have all the good men gone?”. They are everywhere but they are fed up about being rejected because they are not so cool as the players.
So the strategy of letting the men initiate, assures that women get the worse prospect. With these strategy, women trade good man for convenience. Not wise. Not wise at all.