Recurring question- “Are you married”? Depending on my mood and creepiness quotient of the man asking, my answer may vary.
When I write “married” from here on in our present discourse, let it mean a deep, monogamous, committed relationship where each party is not involved in searching and is not interested in looking for what is perceived to be occulted, ambiguous better, greener grass- whether or not this relationship has been declared and substantiated with ceremony, trading, or signing.
With each boy and then man I’ve dated, shared a relationship, or even had a crush on, there was at one point a consideration plug-in musing on whether this man would be a man I marry. This is a natural way women often think, whether it is openly admitted or denied. It does not mean we necessarily want to marry any of these boys or men, but that once he is considered within that framework of thought- we can clarify how we truly feel about him in mental-precision world. Of course this thought process matures with years, and is positioned differently depending upon the self-knowledge and realistic tendencies of the woman, yet it can still be argued to be a common consideration.
I’ve been in love before; so much so that the interior of my teeth vibrated to the harmonies through my heart and/with his. To feel like all the mysteries of the world are discovered, and feel them hold only a sliver of any comparison to the literal awesomeness of life and living in the moment, and know this feeling as a part of self- reminded in the scent of beloved’s scalp and shared concord of a smile between two lovers- I know this feeling. I’ve immersed in it, trusted in it, and felt safe in it- even if only between moments of wonder. I like being ‘single’; I’m not bitter or scorned, nor am I a man-basher, and have often been vociferous in praise discussing references to men I’ve known that make it a shame for anyone to bash the whole sex. I’ve been verbal regarding perspectives on gender and sex relations with just about anyone who knows me, and I understand how misguided many people are, generally speaking, and how this relates to folks separating stupidity by means of bracketing into/around sex, race, religious views, political stances, etcetera. Without getting into that directly, as I often have, let’s accept those previous allusions and statements as already having been said, and focus on the purity of love, without the social poisons…if that is possible- we shall see.
As a heterosexual woman who is within child-bearing age and ‘single’, I exempt myself from some label that I hide or feel lurks around corners of crazy cat-lady categorization origins, even though I really like cats. Seems the options are being with someone I want to be with, or being with someone I don’t; whether it is a right now situation or forever situation holds no bearing, as that is one folly that predetermines strife and confusion in any given situation- if held on to in the ways in which they commonly are when considering matters of the heart and fidelity.
Relationships can be complicated, but they needn’t be if compatibility is held as a factor of the utmost importance in choices and ways of deciphering perception, along with clear definitions on what one perceives compatibility to be, and if this perception is shared with each counterpart of the couple. But the same green and brown tree can and will be seen very differently by different people.
A few years ago, in a land far from the U.S., where the culture has similarities and differences to American culture- like any other place in the world, I met a person who I almost immediately did not like, and after getting to know him better, eventually very much disliked. I actually don’t know who liked this guy, but he was married with three daughters, so I’m assuming at least one of them probably liked him, especially because the daughters were so young. This person once asked me why I was single, and after giving him some dismissive yet serious yet very brief response, he then told me I “need to stop being so stingy”, and gestured with a small degree version of a nod while looking toward my lower body (these are behaviors some drones find acceptable to attempt to place onto women they have labeled as single and interesting). I continued to look at him, but then in that way that makes people uncomfortable, waiting for him to leave the immediate premises, as he was already on his way out before he made the statement. Since this person and I were acquainted on a purely professional basis, he and I only occupied the same space when it had to be done for that particular time. Some days after telling me what he thought of my generosity, I declined from including myself in any further dealings with his employer for separate reasons, and this transitively included him. Oddly enough, he subsequently became a messenger from the employer’s sentiment, undertaking the task of attempting to convince me to change my mind. After incessant phone calls and multiple visits (knocks on the door) to my hotel room, he asked a friend of mine to ask me if I would talk to him personally for a few minutes. People like him usually have bad timing, so he decided to take his pursuit to the next level just as I was planning to go for dinner, unaware that he would have preferred to speak with me after my blood-sugar was leveled. My friend knocked on the door while announcing himself, and as I let him in, he gave this weird look to the door behind him. Once the door was closed, the first words out of his mouth were that Fool Maximillion (not his real name) is at the door waiting to see if I would talk to him, to which I thought- or to catch me when I left?? After peering out the half-opened door, I quickly mentioned to him that I would be leaving in a few minutes, but would grant him a couple of those minutes with conversation.
Of all the questions he could’ve asked me when he began speaking, he asked me why I do not like him. My friend had left when I agreed to speak to Mr. Maximillion to apparently be polite, and I wondered if that would have been his first question if my friend was still there. A man with ulterior motives acts differently when speaking to a woman in the presence of another man- it’s not always something like outright concealment or a heightened degree of machismo, or anything so evident, even though it often is. It’s the more subtle element of these communications that interests me here. I promptly redirected the conversation and asked him what that had to do with anything, to which he responded with talk about my sudden lack of interest in the project. We conversed for a few minutes, when I made him aware that I was going on my way. He asked if we could finish the conversation, to which I responded with confusion as I had already twice let him know that I had not changed my mind and couldn’t see that happening, therefore I didn’t think we had much else to talk about. It was as if we were unknowns to one another’s planets, speaking different languages and utilizing different cognitive processes, yet we weren’t. If you would ask him, he would most probably say I’m difficult to get along with (and probably some other stuff too). This has truth- with him, I was difficult to get along with, as from my perspective, getting along with him equaled doing things in which I did not and do not participate, for example tolerating aggressive mood-swing infringement upon work tasks in which I was directly involved, or even something so simple as forcing laughter when he said things that were not amusing and then looked around just to see who was laughing. In his world everyone is supposed to affirm acceptance of his presence by way of agreeing to bullying and disrespect at every other opportunity because of his ‘status’; that is not my world, and this mixture of our worlds had a trickling while combustible effect. A day after my separation from the project, the participating male lead also quit, creating a string of rumors and erroneous inferences. To this day, the man has not told me directly exactly why he also turned his back on the project though his friend did tell me that it was because I quit, the reasons why I quit, and because he was tired of certain antics. Though this man and I were not dating, did not know each other very well, and had only spent limited time together, when he bowed-out after I did, I felt above all other feelings, (interestingly enough) protected and it was a strong and curious feeling. I had considered how I would’ve felt if it was a female co-worker on the project who would have done the same thing, and concluded that I would have felt it as a personally much appreciated act of solidarity in making the statements that I was making in not continuing with participation. I was moved by what he did, and would have been equally as moved if it was a woman, with no difference at all in degree of appreciation; what I mean to highlight here is how the feelings regarding an action or communication can differ when on behalf of man or woman, from the perspective of a man or woman and how this relates to men-women relationships both romantically and in platonic fashions. Many will judge the idea of differences in perception of actions and reactions being strongly dependent upon whether it comes from one of the opposite or same-sex as stating that there is a difference in the sexes and somehow attaching the idea of different to hierarchical separation. There is undeniably a difference in the two sexes. Instead of equality meaning humanity, it becomes an issue that creates a weakness and strength continuum/battle. Men and women are different- this is natural, fun, beautiful, interesting, amusing, comfortable, balanced, not an issue of strength, and the way it is. How did the idea of women being treated as humanely and considerately as men in society are treated (how great is what that is really asking for anyway?) become a twisted vine bearing rotten fruits destroying the family unit and the inherent harmony between the sexes? In the same way that the seeds were planted- by human hands with a no longer existing connection to the hearts that flow blood into them; minds with disconnected souls and bodies that endure instead of exist.
I certainly consider myself, (if we are speaking in labels) among many labels, a strong woman in spirit, body, and mind. I experience life deeply, and have actively taken observatory duty. I have confirmed from experience that I can nourish and protect my body in and out of crunch-time (crunch-time = where the mind has to plan and the body has to execute quickly, efficiently, and without mental interference). There is no question about my survival aptitude and thriving/flourishing quotients, and I will still say proudly- women need men. Some women will immediately want to retort with- yes, and men need women. This is absolutely a truth- but why can’t the first part be appreciated, digested, and loved, before the sociality of perception of imbalance reflexes in with the need to say the inverse- as though not saying it implies a disrespect somewhere; as a matter of fact the first part seems to immediately allude to the inverse, and therefore saying it right away sounds defensive, and like insecure overkill.
There are very distinct methods and choices of expression and communication propagated through popular-culture in regard to how the sexes are to coexist. Trying to talk man-woman vibration without mentioning sexual socialization is like trying to talk medicine without policy, law, and politics; it exists in truth, but in word-world, things get sticky…I’m still trying.
Even though I’m hard to get along with from the perspective of immature, un-evolved, mentally alienated (alienated in mentality), grass is greener addicted, distracted, spiritually lazy men, with a real man, I’m a woman to polarize and be polarized with.
In the words of my loved and revered teacher Dr. Gui Dun Bai- “The man is supposed to soothe the woman”. This is one of my favorite statements of his and I have thought about the meanings and implications of these words for years and do agree wholeheartedly; and can place the following addendum to answer the question that is begged- the woman is supposed to nourish the man. This certainly implies a codependent relationship, and here codependent is Tao- not a demonized concept from therapy-101.
Compatibility in a romantic relationship involves how a man and a woman soothe and nourish each other respectively, and how well each lives the roles (naturally) assigned and acknowledges receptions to be respectively accepted.
The above is part of my reaction to the question- why are you single?
Back to socialization (just for a sec) and placing it aside the aforementioned- men are generally trained to be familiar and/or comfortable with how to soothe weaknesses in women, and women are generally trained to find more familiar references to the propagation of nourishing weaknesses in men as well. This creates for an interesting societal intermingling for those who are not weak and are more familiar with and learned in nourishing and soothing a whole human including the strengths, particularly when considering the arena of romantic relationships. This training ground is spoken of as a generalization, because it is so pervasive, and has infiltrated most areas of life within most societies. This training simultaneously butts heads with natural inclinations, and engenders a great deal of confusion and strife between itself and parents who are raising whole humans in broken societies, not to mention its (training’s) promotion of chaos in all social areas. I live in the middle of all of this, as do you, and this makes for dating someone who I respect, feel human with, can dance and lay with, and move and be still through life with- an occurrence that just hasn’t really happened yet. It doesn’t mean I haven’t been in love, but it does mean that I think there is more love to be in, and I welcome it. Single has attached to it, a coziness which I cherish; perhaps in real compatibility between a man and a woman in a romantic relationship, there remains the presence of the single-cozy, (which ideally is truly more accurately described as self-cozy) and it is enriched in itself, and alternates with but has an element of divine enmeshing in participation in a development of a shared-cozy that intensifies, when melded with a true love and their own self-cozy. In a relationship with these shared hearths (and hearts), mundane propagated simpleton issues such as keeping sparks alive or lacks of trust between lovers seem to evoke a blend of amusement+experience-related separation-pity, akin to what feelings may be felt by centenarians watching elementary school children fight over a spreading rumor based on a lie told by their teacher.