Fact, Fiction, or Faction?

So, my friend and I have both been in the unpleasant state of job-hunting lately. Talking with him yesterday, I explained that one of my biggest struggles with the whole job search is that I am not one to "inflate" or "pad" my resume. I will not talk up my attributes beyond what I feel is accurate. Yes, I understand that probably does not do me any favors, but I am less afraid of poverty than I am of talking my way into a job beyond my abilities.

I pitch my reality and if that's not enough, so be it. I had the happy occasion today to have an interview for which I was able to truthfully report personal success in every area that would be required of the position. I could honestly say, "I've done this and I've done it well. I am what you need, and what you want."

What does all of this have to do with relationship advice, you ask? Well, how often do we fall victim to the same pressure in dating? I find it really intriguing that I don't have that same confidence to say to someone who interests me: "I am what you need, and what you want." How often do any of us feel sure enough of who we are and what we have to offer to lay it down with such gusto? Or do we have a tendency to over-compensate and swing too far in the other direction? Do we over-promise and under-deliver?

In this age of online dating, the digital format of "getting to know one another" creates a perfect environment for that. In fact, I'd venture to say that it is a rarity to find a profile that is completely accurate. Don't get me wrong, just as with a job interview, you want to put your best foot forward, make a good impression.

You wouldn't show up to pitch yourself for a coveted spot with a prized company wearing your breakfast-stained pajamas and tell them you probably won't show up 27% of the time. In the same vein, who is going to choose for their profile pic the accidental snapshot taken by the phone when it dropped? Or fill out that ridiculous questionnaire on a day when you are sick, fresh out of a break-up, or PMS-ing?

Everyone wants to make a good impression, and that's important. The key is that you present the best version of your true self, not a distorted fabrication of who you think they want you to be. Perhaps, a little faction is in order -- that perfect blend of truth with a flourish.

So, ask yourself: How honest do you expect someone to be? What omitted bits of information (however dull) are a deal breaker? Is it better to be a story-teller or an accountant? Do you want the raw numbers or is it okay to gild the occasional lily?

Fixer-Upers

Well, my blog about Barbie prompted some interesting discussion about what men and women really want. It got me thinking about the expectations we set out before us as we start dating. We have standards -- physical and personality features that are a must, social status or ideals we can't live without. We start out with a mental checklist, or if we are online dating, a profile that takes three hours to fill out.

As time goes by we start to whittle away at those requirements and maybe tall, dark, and handsome becomes average height, darkish, and good-looking. At some point, if we haven't found "him" it might be reduced to at least taller than me, what was the dark about anyway?, and it's not about the external beauty.

Yes, we start to settle. And, that's not necessarily a bad thing as long as we are not compromising on the things that really make a relationship work, the things that make for true compatibility. When we agree to a relationship with someone who doesn't measure up, the truth is it is usually with the ill-conceived notion that we can change them. It makes me want to scream what I do in horror movies: "DON'T GO IN THAT ROOM!!"

It's like going into a merger that is supposedly mutually beneficial only to find out half the existing staff is eliminated as soon as the contracts are signed and S.O.P. is completely overridden. You can't do inter-personal relationships like a hostile take-over. It is important to recognize that people are flawed and you can either live with it or you can't. If the other person is also cognizant of their short-comings and wants to make those changes, you are encouraged to be there and support them in their efforts. But, marriage/life-time commitment is not about buying a fixer-uper.

The thing is, people don't change unless it is truly in their hearts to do so. If you choose someone who isn't right for you, hoping you can make them so, you will have a life of disappointment. You will find yourself retiring with someone you don't like and the only thing you have in common is a shared history of misery.

Being alone or dating through your 40s is not fun, but how can settling be any better? I'm very particular and I refuse to settle. But, I also don't think I'm unrealistic. Here's my list. He must:

• be intelligent enough to keep up with me in conversation,
• have my same strange sense of humor that is a combination of adolescent absurdity and intellectual banter,
• have integrity and a sense of social justice,
• be strong enough that he isn't pushed around by me (or anyone else) but wise enough to know how to pick his battles,
• be kind and gentle but with an edge,
• have, or at least be okay with, tattoos,
• be taller than I am (my only shallow requirement).

There may not be anyone who can measure up and I may end up single for the rest of my life, but I know this: I'm too busy raising one boy to be a man to try and overhaul one who should already be there.

So, what are your expectations? What shapes them? What informs them? What causes you to modify them? And probably most important of all, what are your expectations for yourself? Are you living up to them? Should you reevaluate, and perhaps, elevate them? Is the person most in need of change you?

Barbie: Get Real, Honey!

This morning I posted a link on Facebook:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42595605/ns/today-today_people/

It precipitated quite a few outraged responses about the notion that this life-sized Barbie represented what was attractive to men. Interestingly enough, none of the responses were from women. To my male friends I would say the following:

You are all quite noble in your defense of the "average-sized" woman. But, the image in the media persists for a reason. Women still flock in droves to have their bodies mutilated to reflect certain standards established by Hollywood because they are inescapable. The truth is, this might be an exaggeration, but not by a lot. We are led to believe we must have a tiny waist, huge breasts, legs that go on for days, and an ass you can bounce a quarter off of. I don't believe it's a few women perpetuating those unattainable dimensions to make the rest of us miserable.

Until we send a very clear message to the PTB that women of all shapes and sizes ARE beautiful, that our movie and tv stars don't have to be a size zero with a special bra made to fit their F-cup chest, and until we stop making the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue the best-selling periodical of each year, this demand will continue.

Men, and women, it's time to put your money where your mouth is. Stop buying fashion magazines that insist on creating fashions that only work on a 5'9" and 115lb. body. Stop renting porn that features women with a 20" waist and a 40" bust. Stop watching television shows when you notice the starlettes shrinking before your very eyes. Stop supporting this industry that makes us feel inferior for being in the majority.

I am, for the first time in my adult life, what would be called average, based on the clothing size I wear. I battle myself to reconcile that with the number on the scale and how I actually feel in my skin. Yet, I look at the images shoved in front of me and catch myself thinking "Oh, I have so far to go!" That is wrong. My primary concern should (and really is most of the time) be: Am I healthy? In fact, that should be the only question any of us ever ask ourselves.

Next, start telling your wives, girlfriends, sisters, mothers they really are beautiful the way they are. Start supporting their efforts to get healthy, not skinny. Start letting your daughters know it's okay to eat like a normal, healthy kid. Start sending the message that a size 12-14 is sexy.

So, friends, while I appreciate your assurances that this stacked & packed Barbie holds no appeal for you, please keep that in mind the next time you think Tom Brady is so lucky. Gisele is probably a raging bitch because she can't eat a freakin' slice of pizza for fear of becoming unemployable.

This one's for you! (You know who you are!)

I posted on my status this morning that I'd recently learned Facebook has a feature that, in essence, allows you to cyber-stalk your friends. Aside from the uber-creepyness of that whole concept, I find it more than a little disturbing that we are so lazy now that even psycho-obsessive behavior doesn't require getting out from behind the laptop. But, I digress . . . .

The point of this blog (because I promised someone I would do one today) is about obsessing. I think the title of this blog will be a big clue to you about what tendency you have toward obsessing. If you spend more than a nano-second wondering if you are the person to whom I am referring, you might be an obsessor. See what I did there? Have fun with that today!!!

Seriously, in terms of relationships, I think this tendency is one of the worst for driving a wedge between you and those you love. And, we are all prone to doing it. We become absorbed with the tiniest of most insignificant things that were said or not said, done or not done. Girls, it is a time-tested tradition that men believe we are elephant-like in our memory of every little detail. The stereotype persists that we cling to every miniscule misstep or omission like a hoarder, stockpiling them for a future date when we just might need to use that minor infraction against them.

Now, obviously there are some issues that escape the attention of men which should not be overlooked. They are, afterall (so stereotypically) non-observant oafs who wouldn't notice the elephant in the room if she sat on his lap. However, more times than not, if you have to tell him what he "did wrong," it probably isn't worth mentioning. Sometimes it comes down to a matter of perspective and who is being hyper-sensitive. (No, that's not just directed at the female readers. Boys can be overly sensitive too.)

It all boils down to picking your battles. As a parent we quickly learn the importance of this lesson or risk losing our sanity. Sometimes saying "no" because that is your routine answer isn't the best approach. Sometimes making a federal case out of something perpetuates discord that is totally unnecessary. With your children and your significant others . . . trying not to be gender biased here . . . it is often more effective to let some things slide as long as no one was physically harmed, no laws or moral codes were broken, and it's really no skin off your nose to let it go. Especially when harping on it isn't going to get the desired result anyway.

Why not start practicing now. This will be your mantra . . . Let it go! Let it go! Let it go! . . . It's amazing what releasing some of that baggage will do for your relationship. If you make a habit of ignoring one meaningless bit of minutae every day, you'll find you feel less like an elephant -- lighter and less encumbered by burdens you don't need to carry with you.

So, here's to letting it go on occasion. Here's to allowing your obsessions to fade into obsolescence just like the sickeningly-sweet cologne by Calvin Klein.

I've Got a Hunger (Not a Fever)

Perhaps the way to a man's heart is not through his stomach, but his hunger.

Sounds like some age-old wisdom, doesn't it? I'm not embarrassed to say that's mine. I came up with that when I was about 20 years old. There is very little I thought or said at that age that is actually worth retaining, but this one is a keeper. It has continued to prove to be true.

Let's break it down. The original saying goes: The way to a man's heart is through his stomach. Of course that was a ringing endorsement for the type of woman our mothers and grandmothers were encouraged to be. It was vital to succeed in your Home Ec. classes so you could be recommended as a great cook. Even in this day and age I have had more than one person say about me, "I can't believe you are still single when you are such a good cook!"

REALLY??!! That's a preposterous notion. My feminist side is grossly offended by the suggestion that my culinary skills should have helped me land a man because that's what makes a good wife. Although, my inner chef is flattered by the idea that I'm that good. Of course, it's ironic. We all know men still secretly want women to be "a maid in the living room, a cook in the kitchen, and a whore in the bedroom." Yet, somehow the ability to navigate your way around a four-burner stove does not seem to hold the same currency it once did.

So, my thinking is it's not just their stomachs, it's their hunger to which you must appeal. But, here's the tricky part: There is no way of defining, identifying, or explaining what distinguishes a man's hunger from his cravings. But, they are often quite different. This is the choice between what they want and what they need. And, frequently what will be most fulfilling loses to what will be instantly pleasing. Though you may have the bigger portion of his heart, there may still be another woman, man, object to get his affection or his passion.

But, it isn't enough just to tell him what you think he wants to hear. You really have to give him what he is lacking. If they are looking to be mothered, you have to put on the apron. If they are in need of discipline, you must don the stilettos and whip. If they want to find their best friend, you'll be sporting a team jersey. Identifying that need and fulfilling it is essential. .

But, is there a way to make the sustenance have the appeal of the dessert? Can you elevate brussels sprouts to the level of chocolate cake? (Incidentally, I have converted many people to brussels sprout fans. Literally. I'm not hinting at some metaphorical prowess in this instance.)

Well, all I can really say is that is the challenge before you and that, my friends, is what separates the chefs from the cooks, the women from the girls.

With that, I'll leave you with this song by Nicolai Dunger:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj5OIhVKNWc

But It Won't Keep You Warm At Night . . .

I saw an article today reporting that scientists are studying the effects of Facebook usage on our release of the hormone Oxytocin -- the "cuddle hormone." It seems we are experiencing a spike in the hormone when we log on and engage in the various activities and services social networking provides. This hormone is linked to all the "feel good" sensations we experience, from increased kindness to orgasm.

The article explained that "the hormone is heightened in a variety of behaviors that involve people connecting with one another." Hmmm. Well, we are connected, even though it's through a 1/2 inch cable with a bunch of wires which work in mysterious ways we can't begin to comprehend.

I wrote a blog recently about the limitations of connecting through social media and how it is stunting our ability to really relate on an inter-personal level. I experienced that first-hand recently. I encountered someone I know, but interact with mostly online, and found them to be incapable of talking about anything but the latest posts. I am all for using something like that as a conversation starter, but when you can't talk about anything but what had transpired on Facebook, there are some serious restrictions on your social interaction skills.

We all need a little assistance now and then to get a conversation going, but we shouldn't need help navigating the whole process. I think this is due to the comfort we find in instantaneous ease of IMs and wall postings. Conversation is fragmented -- hell, it's not even technically conversing since the definition is "an oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas." It's not that these exchanges can't happen electronically. But, when we receive the same stimulation from an online chat as we once did from a hug, there is something wrong.

The truth is, I don't think this is accurate. I don't believe we do receive the same satisfaction or gratification from these dehumanized forms of communication. It's just that we aren't getting enough of the real thing, so it stands to reason that any stimulus is going to register. When you deprive yourself of sugar, artificial sweeteners taste good and real sugar puts you over the moon.

Yes, I know this analogy has it's problems, such as tooth decay and diabetic coma, but you get my point. We can learn to live with the substitutes and even convince ourselves they are just as good, but the reality is they will never be as satisfying as the real thing. In fact, studies also show that because we convince ourselves we are doing well by using the fake stuff we can have a little more. We end up consuming more fat or salt to replace the missing sugar or more sugar to replace the missing fat, nevermind the exposure to all the unnatural chemicals. Having just a little of the real thing would satiate that need so much more than a vat of the (fill in the blank)-free stuff.

I guess what I'm saying is we can get the warm-fuzzies from seeing the inbox fill-up or having someone "Like" a post, but how does that really take the place of a pat on the back, holding hands, or an embrace? In case you have been lulled into that complacency, the answer is: It doesn't. My laptop is basically attached to my hip, but I wouldn't snuggle up with it at night. Neither should you. Go hug someone today.

(Disclaimer: Use common sense, and should you choose to hug a stranger, the writer of this blog is not responsible for any undesirable outcome. Further, if you have a restraining order against you in place, please do not violate said order by attempting to hug others.)

"Life Is the Only Game in Which the Object of the Game Is to Learn the Rules"

I honestly don't know what I was expecting when I allowed myself to get caught up in American Idol. I know full well it is a product of the corporate music machine. Between the obscene product placement and the sketchy song choices foisted on contestants (hinting strongly at a conflict of interest for Jimmy Iovine), I don't know how I thought my sensibilities wouldn't be offended.

This past week was particularly abominable as Jimmy tried to convince Casey to change his song choice (to "In the Air Tonight" of all things), admonishing him for not listening to him and assuring us it would be a failure. Casey stood his ground and refused to play their game, and in so doing, completely blew us away with a performance that reflected his true artistry and introduced an entire generation to a genre of music that is sorely under-appreciated.

So, here's the relationship question of the day: Do we really have to play "the game" or can we make up our own rules without being benched?

In fact, why does it have to be a game at all. It's life. Isn't it supposed to be real? Aren't we supposed to be real? We are constantly told to put our best foot forward, to be charming, to carefully conceal all our flaws during the dating process, to give the performance of our lives. Are we really expected to build relationships under the caveat emptor mantra? If we never get an honest look at the person who interests us, aren't we bound to end up with buyer's remorse?

There's a line in a Jason Isbell song, "I'm too scared to ask the right questions, and I'm too tired to fill the right shoes." That kind of sums up where I am with this issue. It all feels too contrived and like too much effort to be something you're really not, and then an enormous hassle to maintain the expectation thereafter.

Tying this back to AI, it seems to me that, regardless of whether or not Casey goes any further in this competition, he made the right choice. He gave a stellar performance, maintained his artistic integrity, and earned major points in my book. He was real. He was true to himself. I think that's all we can ever ask of ourselves, and really all anyone else can ever ask of us.

Casey Abrams stuck to his guns and resurrected "Nature Boy" last night to a standing O. Don't you think you should be just as natural as well? Who knows how much your audience might appreciate your delivery?!

Crave the Wave

I was watching television this morning and saw one of those Ocean Spray commercials where the guys are standing in the water in waders and one of them is as dense as a box of rocks. It got me wondering about the whole floating field of cranberries, so I did a little reading. The ad is showing us what they call "wet harvesting." Cranberries are grown in a bog which is flooded at harvest time, then the plants are agitated, and the berries are skimmed off.

That started me thinking about the term "bog." Typically, it has a negative connotation of being weighted down in muck and mire. It is frequently used to describe a situation that seems overwhelming and oppressive. A bog is defined as "wet, spongy ground with soil composed of decayed vegetable matter." Well, no wonder.

We often experience that in our relationships. We get bogged down in routine or fear or disappointment. We become the rotting sludge below the surface. Sounds pretty bleak, huh?

Well, that's why I think we should take a lesson from those gloriously red little spheres of goodness. The cranberry floats to the top and bobs around until it is scooped up. The reason it does this is because it has air pockets inside. I find this process very fascinating and I think we could all stand to be a little more cranberry-esque.

Don't mistake me for a cheerleader suggesting you adopt that annoyingly mindless effervescence that will make me want to punch you. (In fact, cranberries are naturally very tart. As the commercial says, don't add any sugar.) I'm simply suggesting that a little bouyance might offer us a little resilience as we weather the seasons of our relationships.

Taking a cue from the cranberry, give yourself a few air pockets. Translation: Breathe. When you begin to feel bogged down, for whatever reason, stop and take a deep breath. Spend a few moments in meditation or just inhaling and exhaling. It's remarkable what that will do to clear your head, give you balance, and help you rise above all the garbage encroaching on you.

There are a number of other aspects of the cranberry that can be applied here, such as the anti-oxidant properties that help purge our bodies of toxins and damaging free-radicals. WOW, do we need to do that periodically on an emotional and mental level! I also find it interesting that the wet harvesting is used when cranberries will be used for juices, but dry harvesting is used when the berries will be sold fresh. Haven't really worked out the parallels for that one yet, but I'm sure something will come to me.

At any rate, I found that to be a rather inspiring little revelation. Now, I'm going to go spend some time breathing so I can float to the surface of the bog I've found myself in since yesterday. Maybe you'll do the same.

A Natural Woman feels like what, exactly?

It's been an interesting week on Facebook. One of my friends has been posting some really fun articles and photos that have somehow launched a series of conversations involving a diverse group of people that chase so many rabbits, they end in a place miles away from the original topic. It is fascinating to trace the conversation and the path it took. Sometimes you can see how one thought segued into another. Sometimes they are random leaps that give you whiplash.

The reason I bring this up is that one of the posts (which started as an article from the Onion about the counter-intuitiveness of the success of the Edible bouquet company and became a discussion about monastic life and celibacy and how unnatural that was) made me think about what really is a natural state for our relationships.

In the course of the debate, this statement was made: "Of all the sexual perversions out there, celibacy is the only unnatural one." I, being me and being the word geek that I am, felt the need to qualify that on the basis of semantics. I argued that, since perversions are, by definition, an aberration of a natural or normal state, celibacy couldn't be the only unnatural perversion. (It's redundant.) I stated that it would be more accurate to say: "Of all the sexual proclivities out there, celibacy is the only perversion." That launched another etymological and philosophical debate that concluded with a quote from Love & Rockets: "You cannot go against nature b/c when you do go against nature that's a part of nature too."

Now, I've heard a number of people (mostly men) argue that monogamy, and specifically marriage, is an unnatural state -- that only a handful of creatures on the planet mate for life. While that may be true, I think that is a hollow argument for a fear of commitment rather than a biological incapacity for it. I think the primary fallacy is that "mating" is a very different thing from "relating," and as humans we have a need that transcends scratching the proverbial sexual itch. We might not be designed for sexual exclusivity, but we are certainly made to need a companion who offers a consistent emotional/mental/spiritual connection. The ideal is to find them both in one person, but that doesn't always happen. If it does, then by all means, mate -- and relate -- for life. The thing is, we are so bound by societal roles and expectations that we frequently take a ball-peen hammer to that square peg, determined that it will fit the round hole, come hell or high water. THAT is unnatural.

So, I guess my advice, for whatever it's worth, is to take things for what they are. Let them become what they will be. Don't force an unnatural state -- whatever one you may think you need to have -- and then you might actually have something that withstands all the other unnatural things we attempt.

Yours, Mine, and Ours

I've been hearing one of my friends lament on a regular basis about his difficulty in finding a partner. In fact, every time he hears of someone else finding love he asks, "If they can, why can't I." This is not a question that is unfamiliar to me. I've asked it myself.

On the occasions that I can look at that person and the one who found them and say, "Better them than me!" I am consoled and placated for a while. I take comfort in reminding myself that though it seems unfair that they found someone while I remain alone, that someone is definitely not the one for me. Obviously, that doesn't always work. There are times when I look at that someone and think, "She's marrying my husband!" That's when it gets tricky.

Another friend said she doesn't believe in "THE ONE." She believes there are many out there who can be "the one." It depends entirely on where each of you will be when you encounter one another. The idea that there is only one soul mate fated for you is ridiculous because, what if the two of you live on opposite sides of the planet, or in different eras, or just never cross paths? Does that mean you lose your chance for love? Granted, one could make the argument that if the universe doesn't put you in proximity of time or space they are not really meant to be. However, I do think it is more plausible that, because we change significantly over our lifetimes--in our interests, our priorities, our attractions, our needs--that if "the one" doesn't match those criteria, they aren't right for that phase of your life. And, as we know all too well, timing is EVERYTHING.

I also think soul mates aren't always your romantic partners. If you find one in the same, fantastic; but, often, we don't realize that our soul mate is someone we won't have a sexual relationship with at all. Yes, Carrie addressed this in "Sex and the City," but that's not where I got the idea. She just affirmed it.

The Celts have a notion of love and friendship they call: Anam Cara. In Gaelic anam is the word for soul and cara is the word for friend. The "soul friend" is one with whom you could share your inner-most self, your mind, and your heart. This is explained as a relationship that cuts across all convention, morality, and category--the one in whom your heart could be at home, the truest mirror to reflect your soul. (For more information about this, see John O'Donohue's book Anam Cara: A book of Celtic Wisdom.) I really wonder if we are capable of having that kind of vulnerability and exposure with a sexual/romantic partner.

So, here's my thought. While finding romantic love is a motivating force that can (understandably) completely consume us, it isn't the be-all-end-all. I believe it is so much more important to find that soul friend, the mirror to reflect your soul. The truth is, we could all use a really honest look at who we are so we can decide if that's where we want to be, or if we need to discover something more of ourselves so we can be ready for that one when we stumble on their path.

To my friend, I would say, "I know this doesn't make the loneliness go away. I know it doesn't answer the question of 'Why not me?' or get you any closer to the love you want and deserve. But, maybe it helps reframe what you're seeking. Maybe, just maybe, it helps you understand why you've spent this time alone and what you should be doing with it to help prepare you for when the time comes."

Of course, that could be a bunch of BS and cracking open a gallon of Ben & Jerry's together would be more helpful.