Hi.
Listen, I’m lerry about putting Yahoo messenger on the computer. The last time I did it, they put all kinds of junk software on [my machine]. I recently just replaced the hard drive and so don’t want to get it cluttered already.
I’d be happy to call you. Are you currently in the US?
Dear [Emmy],
Well, this whole business with [Yev], [Kerry], and Debbie has given me much to consider, and work on. I’m actually glad I was finally forced to face the fear of people not liking me. Now that it’s happened for real, I see that it’s really no big deal. Those women aren’t what I’d really want anyhow.
Hope you’re feeling better today. You sounded quite sick last night.
Thanks for listening and sharing.
Talk to you later,
Tom Hesley
Dear [Mentat],
Now, on EP [Evolutionary Psychology] being about the past and how we must not take it to mean that human behavior is irrevocably dictated by the past, I found your words uplifting. It is true that we’ve overcome many tendencies like the eye for an eye philosophy; brutal behaviors that favored the perpetuation of the genes of those who employed them. We don’t generally kill our competitors anymore, though in some light, that would be one sure way to raise our odds of getting healthy offspring into the next generation. Hopefully in our life time, people will overcome their need for fully-functioning mates. Perhaps to bring this about, we’d do well to help get people to Self Actualization, where they’ll likely be more receptive to serving us, like those elderly Lions Club people are that I discussed previously. But in order to do this, we’d need to be self actualized ourselves, which we cannot truly be unless we’re truly loved. What a dilemma!
I will read the material on the web site you supplied, and we can discuss it when next we chat on the phone. Finding ways to escape having to blindly follow evolution is right up our alleys, particularly since sheer evolutionary forces would likely lead us to dead ends. 
Now, on to your comments on my seeking pity from women: I will write on this in the next post.
Dear [Mentat],
Now, on to your comments about how Ellis would advise the handicapped, lovelorn man: Well, here’s where I see the limits of REBT [Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy]. You say that he’d suggest that making one’s happiness contingent on whether or not he finds a mate is foolish. Yes, he probably would. But the question is: Do we have the power to change what truly makes us happy? Can we alter our base level needs and desires? He presupposes that we can via cognitive therapy. But I think he’s overly optimistic on this point. True, we can heighten happiness levels by choosing the right activities. We might decide to pursue gardening, and then reap happiness when others admire our healthy tomatoes. Or, if we can’t grow tomatoes, we can build bird houses, write books, or stand on our heads for five days straight. We keep trying until we find something that works, something that yields the recognition and prestige we desire. Indeed, because of our freedom of choice here, we have some control over what to pursue to gain fulfillment.
Now to put this in terms of Maslow’s Triangle, within the various levels of need, there is much flexibility about specifically how to fill the need (tomatoes Vs. bird houses, piano playing Vs. video games). This is particularly true in levels four and five. For level four, the Ego level, there are many ways to get approval, achieve status, and build self-esteem. In this vein, it’d be self-destructive to insist that the only way to fill Ego requirements would be to work in corporate America. Indeed, you could gratify yourself at level four by starting your own business or working for one other person. Yes, folly results if within the various levels, you get too picky about how you’re going to meet the demands of that level.
As we go higher in the triangle, the more ways there are to fulfill that level’s requirements. The levels at the top such as Ego and Self Actualization (and Transcendence in the newer versions of the triangle), Maslow and others call the growth type needs, as opposed to the deficiency needs found at levels one, two, and three. Ellis’s claim is most valid for those needs above level three, the growth needs. So long as we’re meeting the needs of all the levels in some way, we can indeed be happy through largely our own designs.
However, at levels one, two, and three, needs are more precise and have less latitude. For instance, at level one, we must have food, exercise, air, water, and bodily comfort to enable us to seek to fulfill level two needs in earnest, without dying. These are non negotiable. You can’t substitute anything else for food. In order to survive and fulfill level one, there are no other ways but to have food, air, water, … You get the idea. At this level, we don’t choose the needs and thus, cannot change them. REBT has little use at this level.
Level two, the security level, has identically limited and precise means of gratification. We must avoid harm by living in safe neighborhoods – evading dangerous people, animals, and circumstances. We must feel safe in order to pursue level three and higher requirements with undistracted zeal. REBT cannot absolve us from meeting level one and level two necessities if we want to achieve consistent and lasting fulfillment at the higher levels.
Now, level three is the interesting one because here lies our love and belonging needs. Admittedly, this level starts to look a bit like a growth level as opposed to a deficiency one. Yet Maslow still classified this as a deficiency need, with good reason. While one does not need love and belonging to minimally sustain bodily functions, just as a person in a coma on a feeding tube does not, nonetheless metabolic processes beat stronger and last longer when one has these things. As noted in previous letters, the loved man is by far happier and better equipped to achieve greatness in level four and five than the lovelorn. Again, this is non negotiable. That is if we hope to realize that state of perpetual love of life and selflessness found at the Self Actualization level, we can’t leave this level [level 3] [unfulfilled]. Indeed, selflessness is a product of genuine and complete fulfillment at all the lower levels, and it’s impossible to achieve while one still needs. Just try building a career without anyone but yourself to benefit from your success. And you’ll probably feel that cold draft just as I did; that sad, whisking air blowing through that unfilled hole in level three.
Without the bricks of true love at level three to completely fill in the arrangement, the supporting structure in Maslow’s pyramid beneath Ego and Self Actualization becomes rickety. It totters and shakes, and is easily devastated by competitors and other hardships – demanding bosses, mastery of difficult concepts, too few hours in the day, depression, lacking sense of urgency at the growth levels, and so on. It’s hard to be confident in level four and five pursuits, without the love at level three.
You understand that how well we perform a task is proportionate to how effectively we concentrate on it. However, maintaining high concentration, while not impossible, is tenuous when lonely, just like it is when hungry, thirsty, tired, or in fear for one’s life. Yes, we can enjoy some success up here, while still having work to do below. Indeed, I had many glowing performance reports at [work], even though my level three needs were almost never met in my entire fifteen years there. I kept a house going for five years, got involved with church groups, ham radio organizations, and countless other hobbies. Each was fun to some degree and carried moments of extreme joy. But in the end, none of it really mattered, because every night, that cold draft still found me. Interestingly though, I got my biggest raises ever (totaling 20%) in 2000. I passed two Microsoft certifications as well. Ironic because also in 2000, I had the most female companionship ([Lynn] from Maine for eight months, and [Kar] from Philly on and off during the other four). Increased Ego successes do seem to follow the Social ones.
Let me ask you a strictly non rhetorical question. Do you believe you’ve achieved your maximal potential at levels four and five? I don’t know whether you have or not, and have no opinion either way. If you have, that’s great. But if not, then why not? You’ve certainly been at it long enough, and experienced more than your share of stops, starts, and restarts in your career. You’ve suffered from extreme depression, and weathered numerous consequences of that. You might consider that perhaps missing love in your life is to blame, that perhaps the same cold wind is holding you back that, to a lesser degree, oppressed me in my suburban home.
Call to mind our “good buddy” (and more often, nemesis) Rich Parker. Do you think that without [his wife] to support and fulfill him that he’d have achieved the success he has? I don’t. Not by any stretch. True, they used to fight a lot, and from the outside, his life today may seem boring and lacking in level five pursuits. It’s not a life I’d want.
Yet he has by many traditional measures, accomplished more than either of us and most others at WPSBC. He’s held a job longer, made more money, got better grades in college, went further in college, and has been a consistently good provider for his family. His children seem well-adjusted, and his house, though modest, really feels like a loving home. And he did all that, in spite of his blindness! He surprised his doctors by enduring much longer in his battle with cancer than they expected. And though he lacks the people skills to channel this without judging (and thus irritating) others, he nevertheless commands an unwavering resolve and uncompromising conviction about how he thinks life should be lived.
Yes, he often judges others too harshly who don’t run their lives as he thinks they should, and this makes him insensitive and sorely lacking in the skill of empathy. It also makes it impossible for people like me to befriend him. But he follows his standards too. Indeed, he seems to practice to the letter, what he preaches. Though his judgmental tendencies can be exceedingly frustrating, I admire his devotion to values as well. My impression is that he doesn’t grapple with questions the way we do. He’s decisive and therefore doesn’t take long to make up his mind. And once he does, he does not change it. Ronald Reagan was much like this, though Reagan was better at working with people. Interestingly, both Reagan and Parker had loving women to help them find and maintain this resolve. They don’t show their uncertainties to the world much, because, among other reasons, they have loving partners to explore and eliminate them with.
You will agree, I trust, that it’s easier to be sure of yourself in any level pursuit when someone significant concurs with and supports you. Indeed, the success of psychotherapy largely depends on this sort of “love” relationship between patient and therapist. I put it to you that having a genuinely loving partner has most of the same advantages as retaining a therapist, as well as others a therapist could never provide. The loving partner listens, supports, questions, offers insight, encourages, and so on, just like a therapist. But unlike an analyst, the lover is available for many more than just the single hour per week, and on a per-hour basis, is a whole lot cheaper! We can have sex with our lovers and enter into other joint projects besides self-edification. An abundance of love at level three makes it worthwhile to reach vigorously for levels four and five.
Also, consider that most ex patients experience some sort of relapse after finishing therapy. I believe you’ve known relapse yourself. Does this not illustrate the chronic need for acceptance (level three)? I suspect that Parker never needed therapy, largely because he had [his wife]. True, a lover might not be able to view us as objectively and in the detached ways of therapists, nor love us as unconditionally. But this is also what makes a lover shine, for they do have an emotional stake in our happiness, unlike the therapist, who stands to benefit financially by having us stay sad. In the long run, lovers get to know us better than any therapist, and can provide the same potent support every day, without end.
Now you could argue that one could satisfy his level three needs in other ways besides seeking lovers. He could simply find a good therapist. In fact, nowadays, you can even hire sexual surrogates (by this, I don’t mean prostitutes, but rather, a form of sex therapist) to satisfy the libido as well as the more mental sides of the love lust. But I personally would rather have the [real] lover.
Now It’s tempting to think, in the absence of love, that we can use the pursuits of self actualization and ego to replace love. But that does not work. Experience shows that we can’t effectively quench love lust by indulging a level five passion, like creative writing or participating in peer groups that have nothing to do with love. This is like putting water in a car’s gas tank. The gage might say full afterwards. But that full reading doesn’t mean we can drive hundreds of miles. In fact, it means quite the opposite. We can’t use secure living quarters to meet the need for food, lest we die. We can’t use love at level three to mitigate the need for level two security, lest we be killed. Likewise, we can’t use ego pursuits to eliminate love needs, lest we be chronically lonely and die young, and so on up the pyramid. No pursuit, at any level, effectively satisfies the needs at any other level.
I agree that remaining mate-less need not necessarily lead to unhappiness. I only mean to say that it does imply less happiness at levels four and five, and that people will prioritize low, levels four and five until level three is met. By definition, the lower the level of the need, in question the higher its priority. In the Maslowian model, one could say that the higher level needs are meaningless (or at least, not as meaningful as they could be) until the lower ones are filled. People are highly depressed these days, wondering why they can’t find happiness at jobs and community activities. A look under the covers reveals that most of them aren’t happy in their love relationships. So with all the above said, it follows that this is probably because they’re neglecting the lower level needs. They’re working too hard at Self Actualization and Ego, and not enough at Social.
While it may not be “rational” to make one’s happiness contingent on finding a mate, I believe this observation to be academic. Why? Because we don’t decide whether or not to have this need, just as we cannot alter our need for food or security. Indeed, the human [brain] has entire regions in it (the hypothalamus and thymus) that seem to be devoted to the desires and actions of mating. The love need is part of our nature and without radical restructuring of our evolutionary design both physical and mental, we can’t realistically hope to change it. We simply can’t just “leave it behind,” anymore than we could eliminate our beating heart. I believe it best therefore, to embrace this need and seek to fulfill it, [rather] than to deny it and play substitution games with different-level pursuits. To seek to eliminate this passion is a goal loftier than us trying to do better than handicapped women.
Yes, my happiness is on the line, but as I see it, there’s no way to avoid that. As discussed extensively before, I tried seeking pleasures in levels four and five in the hopes that this would overcome the thirsts at level three. But I failed miserably.
Dear [Mentat],
Now I agree with the rest of what you said on the difficulties blind men face when trying to assess women quickly. Upon reflection, it seems that though the sighted can use vision to make better first assessments, they still suffer from disillusionment often. Even though a woman looks pretty from afar, this is usually a bad predictor of how stimulating she’ll be once the clothes come off. Ladies hide many a sin beneath baggy or even selectively tight clothes, exaggerating their best features with makeup, hair spray, and the like, and downplaying their not-so-pretty ones. They change their waist-to-hip ratios with girdles – a key indicator of “mate-ability,” and make their breasts look bigger by stuffing their bras with toilet paper. Even permanent cosmetic surgeries can be disheartening, because though a skilled doctor might transform a 3 into a 10, she still has the mental constitution of a 3, especially if she’s lived her whole life as a 3. Though she’s now a 10 physically, she still walks and talks like a 3. Her physical form is now out of sync with who she is on the various spiritual levels, and this dissonance will detract from her better looks.
This is bad because men worldwide are disappointed when they finally see her downside, often after months or years of courtship. Alas, the time men waste chasing women who initially appear better than these ladies actually are, is phenomenally high. To learn that things have been intentionally obscured or fabricated for such a long time is no fun. It casts permanent doubt on her integrity and makes her seem like a manipulative liar. It’s hard to love someone like that once the truth comes out. But someone like you might be more immune to this than your sighted peers.
Even though your lack of vision appears to impair your ability to make fast initial assessments, you’re not as handicapped as I first thought. Why? Cosmetics and perfumes help, though dubiously, even the playing field for the blind man among women who use them. They ensure that even sighted men can’t sense the whole picture immediately, by impairing the accuracy of the whole visual and olfactory cue system. This makes both (especially sight), somewhat less reliable as first indicators of quality mate material. And though the obscuring effects of makeup don’t obscure as effectively as blind eyes, still, you may be less easily scammed because the makeup tactics appeal to a sense that you do not have – vision. Therefore, you might see through the deceptions more quickly than a fully-sighted man, because you walk right past what keeps more able men guessing for months. Paradoxical, ‘eh?
Some forms of beauty are indeed only skin-deep. So the saying has some truth. Man-made beauty is one of these. But natural beauty on the other hand, goes much deeper than the epidermis. It summarizes well the woman’s true constitution, inside and out, and is less subject to manipulation. In fact, women who garner the confidence of their natural beauty would be unlikely to mess with it at all. Natural allure promises only what woman can indeed deliver. That is, if she excites without makeup in the bar room, she’ll also electrify in the bedroom. Men would find that the fantasies a woman inspires would likely be every bit as fun to live out as he imagines, if she has not adulterated her appearance. The male disappointment mentioned above would happen much less in my opinion, with women uncovered at the first meeting. True, honest ladies might get fewer hits from strangers, a fact that many unscrupulous females site in order to defend their “art work.” But the come-ons they do receive would blossom into love relationships more often.
But use of an eye liner, powder puff, and lipstick inspires a more hollow magnetism. The fantasies encouraged by “painted ladies” are not as enjoyable when recreated for real, as they are when played in the mind, especially if they involve the makeup coming off. Makeup [, trendy clothes, and other pieces needed for playing the lipstick game] promotes letdown. Though a made-up woman may appear attractive while covered, she very often will be markedly unattractive without the fake lashes and rouge. She may recognize her wanting natural beauty, and this could be the reason for the makeup in the first place. Indeed, the less attractive the woman [thinks herself to be], the more makeup she’ll likely use. Thus, a sign of a woman who thinks she’s unattractive is the presence of lots of makeup. If she thinks she’s unattractive, then she probably is. However, unlike made-up beauty which flows down the drain in the shower and which can change from day to day depending on how she reapplies the paints, genuine beauty lasts, and so is not the beauty referred to in the over-quoted saying about skin deepness.
Fortunately though, all this is of little consequence to you because, again, you are unmoved by a woman’s skills at artistic visual trickery. Instead, you are more impressed by things other than appearance; things that she can’t as easily alter. Her voice is a big one. The voice tells much about her natural beauty, and what it conveys generally goes in lockstep with the visual indicators. Generally speaking, when a woman has what we deem resonantly attractive, she’ll sound it, and look it too. If she sounds great, she looks great and vice versa. For instance, should she be constantly out of breath, even when at rest for some time, she may be overweight. If she wheezes and her voice is rather low, she could be a smoker, and carry the visual earmarks of that, such as prematurely wrinkled and saggy, transparent skin. If she talks loudly as a matter of course, she might be hard of hearing or lacking in social grace. Believe me. Women who sound socially inept usually look it as well. She may talk loud also, because people don’t otherwise pay attention to her. This is a clear mark of low visual desirability. The point is that though your blindness limits you, you may, as you mention, employ other ways of gleaning the same information, which are likely as effective as sight.
Dear [Mentat],
Now to your observation that some people feel that it’s good that a person not consider another visually. Well, of course, as you say, I don’t buy that. Pictures do speak a thousand, usually true words (and likely, much more). Foolish are those who dismiss this ready-source of accurate information. You really can judge a book by its cover, because nature does well at summarizing on the cover, what’s inside, unless of course one adulterates her appearance with makeup [and other cosmetic devices].
Consider the woman who appears fat. She likely eats too much, spending more than usual on food, or on doctor visits. She complains often of her aching feet, knees, and hips. She’s frequently depressed and sluggish because in order to maintain obesity, she must over-consume the wrong stuff (sugar, refined carbs, high fat foods, and so on), and not enough of the right stuff – the high-nourishment foods such as fruits, vegetables, beans, seeds, whole grains, and nuts. The comfort treats do not promote healthy mental processes, and in fact, retard them. So, she often has strange views about the way the world works, strongly insisting that she’s right, when it’s obvious to even the most elementary but healthy mind, that she’s wrong. She knows not how to eat well, suffers from the trappings of destructive addiction, and tends to be defensive toward anyone who doesn’t admire heavy women. She clears her throat, snorts like a hog, and coughs too much because of smoking or excess milk consumption or food allergies borne of eating too much. Thus, her appearance lacks grace and [refinement].
You’ve heard of Short Man’s Syndrome? Well, she, virtually always has Fat Woman’s Syndrome. That is, she blames societal discrimination for her loneliness, rather than owning her problem and getting thin. Someone like her probably invented this idea that you can’t judge a book by its cover, to exalt her position and to put down those who believe [that] you can. She knows that people will not “read” her once they glance at her jacket. So she trumpets the myth that she carries desirable things not immediately visible, and then ridicules those who choose not to look for them. She faults those she repels for their “shallowness.”
She’s easily offended and characterized by unpredictable mood swings, and is typically lazy. She’s in chronic pain, gets out of breath with little effort, and has trouble getting in and out of the shower. Thus, people like her tend to avoid the daily bath, and so may be unclean. She wants others’ high esteem without working for it, and she’s gluttonous and typically over-does not only dining, but other activities as well. She yells when a whisper will do, slams doors when a gentle push would shut it, and whines monotonously when but one gripe gets the idea across just fine.
She seeks cures for her woes in pill bottles, and frequently abuses both over-the-counter and prescription drugs. She makes more trips to the emergency room than someone thin, due to palpitations, breathlessness, chest pains, dizziness, blood pressure spikes, and fainting spells. Thus, her medical insurance bills are staggering, and you’ll hear her moan about this too. See, one can infer a lot just from a few minutes of observing.
I could go on about most any other visual characteristic and how it often tells more truth than what comes from the person’s mouth. But I trust that you get the idea. You realize that I’m exaggerating a bit about what one can infer from obesity, but not much. Not all fat people are this way, but those I’ve observed exhibit many of the above-mentioned hallmarks.
Dear [Mentat],
Yes, there’s a place in the profile where you can indicate how far away you’re willing to have your date be. And most women say they only want to meet someone within 20 to 100 miles of them. Yes, I have entered many different zip codes from 15213 to 1660x (mine) to 90210. California has the most women I’d consider worthwhile dates. But they’re 3000 miles away.
I’ve considered moving back to Pittsburgh. But there aren’t many women there either, at least on match.com and americansingles.com. If I was really going to do this right, I’d have to come to CA. But, given my experience of going to Philly only to find continued romantic desolation there, I’m not sure that moving anywhere is the right answer, especially with the Internet so readily available. Internet relationships can work if people are patient.
Funny. These days, I’m more patient than the women. In fact, I’m often the one putting the brakes on when relationships start going too fast. That ballerina last fall mentioned marriage after only a month of talking. And Wow, I just had to say, “Slow down!”
Yes. Questionnaire surveys are only so reliable because they don’t provide an independent means of measuring a person’s actual responses. Their weakness is that they rely on the person being questioned to evaluate that response and then to put down what he thinks. Very often, people put down what they think the questioner wants (or does not want) to see, rather than what they actually feel.
No, on match.com, there is no way to search for women directly based on the ages that they’re looking for. However, there is a feature called “Reverse Matching” that allows you to search for women who say in their profiles that they’re looking for someone like you (based on age, educational levels, and other parameters). You can change the results you get by changing information in your own profile. However, you can’t change your age.
I have, and continue to appreciate all your attention. You’ve really helped me clarify many questions and resolve much doubt. You’re a gem of a friend. I have only two others like you, so you make sure to stay healthy, because I don’t want to lose you.
Later,
Tom Hesley
Dear [Mentat],
Yes, older people are indeed less self-absorbed. Perhaps this is why the Lions Club has so many people older than 65. My grandmother Jewell always impressed me with how kind she was, not to just me, but to Pap and all who knew her. I used to get so frustrated because I could not as a teen, emulate her selflessness. It took many years to understand that she was 50 years ahead of me on that development path you speak of.
I mentioned in the last post that yes, because of the abounding opportunities today, women on the whole are less likely to opt for home maker roles. Nor do they, as you say, desire to be provided for. This is a good thing, actually. Hopefully, it will mean fewer gold-diggers out there as well. Yes, women here and in China seem to be shedding their maternal instincts somewhat. But I suspect that there’ll always be at least a few who want the traditional life, even in China where such a life is, as you describe, difficult at best.
Interesting. I talked much in the last post about how women’s expanding opportunities mean that fewer of them actually want the traditional mother or housewife roles. Additionally to the expense of children we also have the liability. It’s really hard to raise a child well these days without being an expert in child psychology. You know, parents can’t hit the kids anymore, and discipline and punishment are now exercises in mental acrobatics. And heaven help you if you say the wrong thing, or even the right thing but with the wrong inflection. No, I wouldn’t want to raise kids today. I’d have to agree with these modern-day women who don’t wish it either.
Well, keep me posted. As I found out, being well-off does not guarantee happiness. I was middle class until 2003, but now that I’m poor, I’m actually much happier. The price of that good pay was simply too high.
Yes. Chuckle. We will have to deal more with the physical detriment of aging if we target this sect of women. But, I mean to tell you , that there are 60-year olds who look damn good.
Yes, you’re right of course. I actually felt kind of foolish for going to [psychics], but did rather enjoy myself once I did. However, believe me when I say that I don’t believe these people have any more of an inside line on my life than myself. It was just nice to have someone to talk to, who seemed to understand.
The women found me because I had profiles on the Internet in the late 90s. Yes, they were from Ghanna (in West Africa) but mostly, Russia. Yes, they were from poor areas. And yes, many women from Russia are scammers. There was just a report on the evening news about the whole male-order bride business and how much money has been lost to these vultures. In fact, many of them aren’t even women at all. They’re just guys, using women’s pictures.
More later.
Take care.
Dear [Mentat],
We’ve been talking about the obsessive quest for love; you sighting its disadvantages and wanting to stay clear of it, and me its proponent, embracing it and attempting to show why it’s necessary to the excellent man.
Continuing the discussion, I offer another advantage of serious questing (whether for love or anything else): The hunt itself enriches the soul, even if in the end, we never manage to bag the prey. It supplies meaningful reasons for living and the stamina for executing life’s many pursuits, motivating us to learn about many things while seeking our big answers. Quests, fruitful or not, advance us closer to supreme understanding and self actualization.
You know, I was musing the other day that until last year, I had no regrets. I never felt I made many bad decisions. Even with bad outcomes, I usually knew that I had made the best choice possible given what was known at the time. But lately, my history of academic laziness at WPSBC troubles me. Though I tried there, to read classic literature, history, and philosophy, I simply couldn’t stay awake through it. True, the sugary, caffeinated beverages and the late nights we kept, contributed to the chronic drowsiness. But the reading was also boring, just like algebra, geometry, and Spanish, because I saw no relevance of these materials to electronics or mating – my two biggest dreams then. What would this stuff ever be used for? Its benefits just weren’t clear when my voice was high, and the fact that adults forced us to study further closed my eyes to any goodness of knowing about X, Y, and Z, not to mention the differences between inductive and deductive reasoning. If a teacher then could have connected the dots and showed how literature, history, and philosophy could help solve problems that would plague us later in life, I might have been a straight-A student. Naaaaaah!
Fortunately, though tardy, my Love Quest has done this. It’s made literature’s relevance clear, albeit twenty-five years after graduation. The problems posed by chasing the Big Dream (what you and I have been scratching our heads on now for some years) might well have already been solved in a great novel that I just never got around to reading yet. If I had read more books growing up, during that time of high mental pliancy, I might not today be struggling to find the answers which have eluded me for so long. If only a teacher had said back then that the more we read, the better equipped we are to tackle life’s injustices, I might have discovered my current-day zeal for reading that was nowhere to be found a quarter century ago. [My] quest instilled the reading passions lately, and this is good. The Quest is good. In this way, it has improved me.
Speaking of Dr. Phil, you’ll be pleased to know that he agrees with you on this subject, advising people not to focus on finding relationships. Like you, he says that a person should indulge his other passions first. Don’t go to bars, clubs, grocery stores, or any other mate market with an agenda. Go without hidden motives, simply because you like going and not because you want to meet a mate. In terms of The Triangle, he’s telling his audience to reach for Ego and Self Actualization needs, before they fulfill their Social ones. This sounds rather ill-advised to me.
Then, he gets too spiritual, and says to believe that if it’s meant to be, a relationship will happen, without looking for it. I agree with this partially. It really does go just this way for some people; specifically, the prettiest. Certainly, the most attractive among us need put forth the least effort to snag a high-quality mate. The prettiest girls don’t have to go to dating services or get their friends to match them up with blind dates. All they need do is walk down a street where guys are, and by the time they reach the next block, they’ll have been hit on several times. Relationships find them, and they’re sitting pretty because they never have to risk rejection.
It’s no wonder that attractive people (like Dr. Phil) advocate this wait-for-it-to-happen attitude. Why not? For them, happen it usually does, without them ever lifting a finger. Indeed, a basic tenant of evolutionary psychology is that the prettiest are most destined to mate. (Studies show that they’re the ones who most often actually do mate.) Rewording this slightly, you could say that nature means for the prettiest to be loved the most. And when nature means for you to love, it’s easy to say, “If it’s meant to be, it will be.” Dr. Phil offered nothing truly profound here.
But things don’t work this way for the average or the ugly. Indeed, the less desirable the man, the fewer the women who will want him. Clearly, this necessitates a higher degree of dedication from him than from his more attractive peers, so as to find one who does. The average Joe just can’t afford to be passive here, because relationships don’t just happen for him. Not like they did for Dr. Phil. Nature thwarts rather than favors the lovelorn, which is probably why they’re lovelorn in the first place. For Average Joe, nature’s good intentions aren’t so abundantly plain. Such people learn early that nature does not intend goodness for them, and so they learn not to count on it for that. While it may still be “meant to be” for him, love is by no means as easy to achieve. So he must try and try hard, because virtually all of us, pretty or not, are subject to Maslow’s Triangle. We have a strong need to be loved by a quality mate, and unless that’s satisfied, we won’t achieve maximal fulfillment in the triangle’s higher need levels of Ego and Self Actualization. Its queer how Dr. Phil’s philosophy doesn’t seem to account for The Triangle, and how he doesn’t often acknowledge the existence of alternative rules of social engagement which the less attractive among us must follow.
It should be plain that the rules of how to get love differ vastly among people, depending on how attractive they are. Thus, there is no one patent way to approach relationships. Neither the devoted nor worldly ways are always right. Perhaps the most attractive can afford to be Worldlys and still have fulfilling unions. But this approach is often only right for other attractive people, and has little value for the less desirable, who are negotiating an entirely different social landscape. This is why I get so frustrated with Doc Phil because he often targets his advice to the most attractive, and the applause and groans of his audience tend to discount the points of view of the Average Joes. But hey, it’s his show. He’s free to run it as he wishes, of course. I only mean to point out the limits of his advice and to underscore that his “words of wisdom” work well for far fewer viewers than who actually watch the show.
Not only do effective mating strategies differ between the more and less desirable mates, but as you know, they also differ vastly between men and women, attractiveness notwithstanding. Traditionally, ladies have not aggressively sought mates. In the high school dances in the 50s, women lined up off to the sides of the dance floor, awaiting the men to invite them out. This still happens in the bars and night clubs today. As found among most species, human females tend to defer to males to make the first move – to come to them, and to take all the initial risks. Many telephone dating services employ this philosophy to get women to join by only charging the men, while the women use it for free. The more assertive, risky, and costly role has been, and will be for centuries to come, the male one. So we’d expect females to support a more passive approach to mating than men. Indeed, when Dr. Phil related his wait-for-it-to-happen view above, it was the women who were heard applauding the loudest.
So, female passivity is still true even though we’ve reached the post feminism age. Though equal rights abound today, women still largely favor The Gentleman, who opens doors for them, pays for their meals, and takes the bulk of emotional risks in order to advance the relationship. They like the man to drive and be the initiator. Yet they often say they don’t approve of his assertive antics, claiming that they couldn’t ever imagine behaving that way themselves. But the fact that they wouldn’t behave that way doesn’t explain their dislike, though they frequently offer it as such. Why should they behave like him? After all, they’re female, not male.
What actually determines how she’ll react is not so much his behavior as it is how attracted she is to him. Prettier men get away with more. They can disrespect, neglect, and abuse their women without worry of her leaving. Even if she does go, they’ll have no trouble finding another. But let me get back on track here and say that women on the TV talk shows frequently fault the male approach to relationships, sighting his obsessive compulsions as saboteurs in the relationship. And males, like Dr. Phil, buy into that, because Dr. Phil knows that he’s going home that night and sleeping with none other than a woman. For him to support anything other than his just-let-it-happen-by-itself approach, would not bode well with his wife. There are clear differences between male and female approaches and the problem with TV talk shows is that they tend to lump everyone into one pot, where one approach is right for all. Not so, as I hope I’ve made clear.
Okay, okay. I got carried away. I promise, I won’t write anymore in response to this part of your letter. Also, I guess we’ve drifted away from the central theme of this thread – about whether or not we handicapped men can do better than handicapped women. Let me say that I think we can, but with difficulty. Parker found himself a fully functional woman. And if he can do it, … well, you know the rest.
We may not have to do better though, if we find a right handicapped woman. As noted in previous posts, there are a few of them out there, though they’re quite few and far between. But whether or not we do better is irrelevant so long as we find someone we consider supreme. History proves that it’s possible for us both to find preeminence in eyes that don’t see well. You’ve loved [First Love], [your sweetheart from the late 70s], and probably others. I’ve loved [First Love], [Alandra], [...] and others. They were quite good. So even if nature restricts us to dating only the handicapped, well, given the love we’ve experienced from these women, perhaps that’s not so bad. But no matter who we seek to date, the climb is up a steep hill for us, and we won’t reach the top of this hill via half-hearted or no effort. We’ve got to focus, because with focus comes clarity. And with clarity comes clear direction. And with clear direction and a willingness to follow the path, success will likely come.
More later,
Dear [Mentat],
Now, continuing the arguments for steadfast dedication to relationships and little else besides shared endeavors, let me say that my brief experience with the Lions Club has introduced me to many couples from around PA, who have been married for three to five decades. While we can’t know what goes on behind closed doors, in public at least, most of them seem very happy and enjoy participating in Lions activities together.
Now I’ve gotten to know four of these couples. They don’t spend much time apart. Whatever their external interests, except for reading perhaps, they share together. Whenever I’ve asked them to drive me somewhere, they both come along. Rarely does one appear without the other at an event. They speak of their happy times, and help each other lovingly. When they are apart, they talk much about the other’s accomplishments. They need each other, but in a good way. They comfort each other and help one another through life’s difficulties and fears. They don’t come across as being obsessed with each other, because their obsessions in that vein were satisfied long ago. More on this below, where I discuss Maslow’s Triangle. They each know implicitly that the other loves them, and this state of affairs drives away the insecurities that fuel much obsession. A lifetime of dedication to each other seems to have made them better off as individuals, ironically.
We need not thirst for water to know its necessity. As long as the thirst remains quenched, we’re free to go about our lives as we desire, largely unencumbered by that thirst. However, we’d best provision to keep ourselves irrigated, lest we become parched and unable to focus on anything else but more water – lest we become obsessed. The absence of thirst can by no means be construed as an absence of need. Rest assured that the one who appears to have no thirst for love, [probably] still needs it, and probably has a source of it that you don’t know about.
Good relationships are much like this, as exemplified by these Lions Club couples. Healthy love satisfies a genetically evolved thirst for a productively advantageous mate. While the absence of love is not as dire as a missing water bottle in the desert, it can nonetheless, likewise compel us to dedicate efforts to get love, just like being thirsty motivates us to seek water above all else. These Lion couples however, are not thirsty. Each participant in the couple respects and does whatever he can to fulfill her emotional, mental, and physical needs. They rely upon and trust each other implicitly to do that, and as long as each does her part, the individual strength the lovers derive from the other is astounding.
You’ve heard the saying that behind every great man is a great woman, and vice versa. The great person does not thirst for adoration, because he has an assured and abundant supply of it, and so his mind is free to focus on issues of world importance – issues outside the relationship that sustains him. Paul McCartney, Ronald Reagan, Dr. Phil, The Bushs’, and so many others all have wives dedicated to them and their happiness. Dr. Phil’s wife appears with him on every show, a testimonial to the notion that there are women supremely dedicated to their men and families out there, and that relationships overflowing with this dedication can indeed work well. Linda McCartney learned to play the keyboard so she could be with Paul and help in his performances with Wings. Most CEOs and other high achievers are married. In fact, people live longer, healthier, more productive lives on the whole, who do not live them without lovers. In this way, dedication to relationships first can actually help one achieve renown in external pursuits, rather than hinder him. Devotion does not always thwart Worldly. In fact, it may be a precursor to worldly pursuits, as discussed next.
Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs” triangle shows that social needs (the need to be loved, belonging, and inclusion) are lower in the hierarchy than the needs of self actualization (the needs for development and creativity and worldly pursuits). His theory suggests that the lower level needs must be satisfied first, before the higher level needs become high priority. That is, we don’t worry about solving world hunger until we’ve satiated our own hunger. Indeed, the emptiness I’ve spoken of after promotions at [work], likely happened because I was trying to fulfill ego needs (those of self-esteem, power, recognition, prestige), before the lower-level social needs were met. Extrapolating from my own experiences as well as The Triangle, it’s foolish to attempt self actualization until our love needs are met.
Now, back to our happy Lions Club couples, they want not for love, not because they’ve mastered the ability to stand alone, but rather, because they accept just how crucial to their overall success a good lover is. They embrace the concept, and were lucky enough to find it. The love that surrounds them enables them to achieve their excellence, as per The Triangle. Indeed, gratification in love is the foundation of self actualization needs. Their relationship does not retard them in those higher level pursuits so long as they give it its due. In this light, a relationship is a necessary step to achieving world-class excellence in any other pursuit, and is a big reason for me to be devoted to getting love.
I’d like to achieve great things both within and outside a relationship, and as discussed previously, tried to do so without love, but couldn’t really. I want to achieve greatness, but only after I achieve love. I understand today that my need for love is more immediate than that for career or hobbies. As noted, I feel that the right woman would eliminate the emptiness I noticed when achieving at [work]. In those days, if I’d had a warm bed to come home to, a nice meal prepared by loving female hands, and a lady to be proud of me who would boast of me to her friends where I could hear her, the victories at work would have meant more.
Now it may sound like I’ve been favoring fierce dedication to love instead of Worldly pursuits as a life philosophy. But let me clarify that. I didn’t mean to suggest that there’s no place for worldly pursuits. I just think that before one can concentrate whole-hog on them, he must first satisfy his love lust, as inferred from Maslow’s Triangle. The time for world-class excellence comes after those needs are satisfied, not before, and not during the love quest, but only once love is won.
With all that said, obsessive focus on relationships is often shunned by Worldlys, as a behavior that healthy people do not display. However, particularly prior to, as well as early in a new romance, obsession with the relationship is normal, and well. When asked what their relationships were like when they were younger, these Lions Club couples tell of pining, particularly early on, when their beloved’s affections were unsure. Uncertainty about when or where the first kiss would come heightened their preoccupation with the romance. But once the couples grew close and actually exchanged that first kiss, that intense concern vanished, and along with it, excess obsession over the relationship in general. While some overly righteous, “healthy” people exalt themselves by claiming to have purged their longings for love through some form of mind control like meditation or indulging heavily in unrelated pursuits, I say not so fast. After all, the vast majority of us have these cravings, yearnings which are built into us by evolutionary design, just like our water thirst. The most well-adjusted person stands strong because he’s satisfied his cravings for love by actually finding it, not by renouncing it and learning to function well without it.
Of course, not all cravings are alike. That is, while it wouldn’t be good to satisfy a craving for illicit drugs by seeking them out, other cravings, such as that for love, can only be fully eliminated by obtaining and keeping the object of desire. Not all cravings are bad. The craving for love does not carry the same harmful consequences as say, the cravings for excess food, tobacco, and other vices. So we can’t say that love lust is bad just because it bears some of the same earmarks as those cravings that lead to bad ends. Unlike the bad cravings, that for love is a good one, because it’s realization will actually improve a life.
Tom's Love Quest is proudly powered by
WordPress
Entries (RSS)
and Comments (RSS).