Settling...or Settlers....or something.

So a girl on an email list that I subscribe to (for young singles in my church) sent out an email today with a link to an article., and invited discussion:

"The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough"
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/single-marry

The author made many good points about why "settling" for someone that doesn't have everything you want is better than hoping the person you want will come along, in particular those who (like myself) aren't getting any younger. She feels that "settling" has gotten a bad rap, and we look at it negatively when we really shouldn't. She talks about how her priorities have changed since she was in her 20s--and now in her 40s, as a single mom, she wishes she just had someone to partner with her in building a life. He might not be perfectly handsome, he might not have a great singing voice or write beautiful poetry, heck he may not even "connect" with her--but she feels that if he was a good dad, and dependable, he'd be worth having. Or something like that. The articles meanders a bit, but it makes some interesting points.

I'm not married. I'm also 32--and in my faith, those two don't really (or aren't supposed to) go together. You're expected to marry in your 20s, have a few children and be well into a career by now. I don't meet that criteria. I find it incredibly ironic that people counsel individuals in my situation to "not dwell on" the fact that I'm not married, "don't obsess about it" and be "happily single." JOKE!! Just not a funny one. How the heck am I supposed to do that when my faith is ALL ABOUT THAT? Every week at church, I'm surrounded by young married couples. Every time I'm about to check out an attractive woman, I have to remind myself she's married and turn my attention elsewhere. And the church's idea of supporting me in this struggle is to put me into a singles program that includes everyone from age 31 to.....dead. Riiiiiiiiiiight. This after coming out of a very supportive "Young Single Adult" program that was tailored to the ages from 18-30. You might start to feel a little old for the crowd at the tail end, but at least you're not looking into Social Security. Holy crap.

Now the church doesn't actively preach "settling"--nor do I think they ever will. When you're LDS, and believe that marriage is for eternity (not just "til death do us part"), it changes that dynamic a bit. Certainly, you better kinda like spending time together, or eternity's gonna get old real fast. At the same time, I have heard church leaders say "any 2 people that are living the gospel of Jesus Christ can be compatible." So it's really left to a personal thing. If you're really that hard up, and you feel it's right for you--you can make the choice to "settle" or not. But of course, make sure to include God in the decision through prayer. That's what I've gotten out of what I've been taught anyway. I think the church would much rather you be in love with that person, and happy with them--but if you choose to settle they won't stop you.

But my personal take is this---settling is a bad idea. I say that because I've tried it in relationships before--with catastrophic results. "She likes me, why not?" is a dangerous line of thinking, in my experience. It only made me more miserable, since instead of just being lonely, now I felt dishonest. Feeling like that for the rest of my life is a depressing thought. Of course how depressing is it to think about waking up on Christmas morning when I'm 55 or 60 to an empty house? Nobody to open presents with, or watch It's a Wonderful Life on Christmas Eve. Then again, do I want to be jealous of George Bailey because I "settled"? Ay yi yi....

The author of that article does tone things down a bit though--she frames it this way: we grow and mature, and our priorities change. That guy that didn't seem dreamy enough to her 10 years ago, might not seem half bad now. Maybe a guy that plays volleyball and is in good shape isn't as important at this point as the guy that would be willing to get up and feed the baby at 3am, even if he does have a receding hairline. We're all gonna get old and ugly eventually anyway.

She has a good point--but I still have trouble with the idea of "settling". Here's how it is for me: I had what I felt was the perfect girl many years ago. We were in love, and I cared for her as I have cared for no one else before or since. It SHOULD have worked--but it didn't. My happily ever after fell in the gutter and washed down the drain (to complete the analogy, it was probably recycled into someone else's), and I've never come even remotely close to that feeling since. So here's the rub--do I want to "settle" for someone I can tolerate, or am fond of, or even kinda like, and accept that as the best I can do--when I know how good it can feel? One of my favorite songs contains the following lines:

Now I've swung back down again,
It's worse than it was before
If I hadn't seen such riches,
I could live with being poor

And that's the long and the short of it (and the third such phrase I've used in this rather verbose post). I've been rich--very rich. So poverty --no matter how comfortable--will always be (at least a little) bitter. Or maybe bittersweet.

Heck, maybe I can hire a lonely female friend to come watch It's A Wonderful Life with me every Christmas Eve. Then we can talk about how much we envy the main characters. Any takers? Now accepting applications.

P.S. And now, just because (mainly because this page is in need of pictures)--a picture of a cat in a sink.

Goethe/Live Oak/Riverbend/Some Maidu word most people won't try to pronounce Park

So a local park along the American River is having it's name changed, because the man it's named after apparently promoted eugenics, a 19th century theory that mental and physical defects are hereditary and that people with mental illness should be forcibly sterilized so they wouldn't have children and "pollute" the healthy hereditary lines. Later on people used it to justify racism and other rotten causes.

Pretty messed up, I agree--but as a student of history, I'd also point out that people had alot less knowledge and alot more biases back then. Besides, people are still using foolish ideas to justify their own, more foolish ideas. In 100 years we'll probably be taking their names off of park signs too. I respect the gesture, it's a nice thought. But it seems kind of pointless. Also interesting is this--wikipedia says Alexander Graham Bell was a proponent of eugenics too! Guess we all better stop using our phones :) I sincerely doubt there are many historical figures that didn't have something stupid they did/believed in during their lifetimes. But I guess we pick and choose who we're going to be proud of, and who we'll be ashamed of.

Other people will be wondering about the dumb stuff we concerned ourselves with in some far-off day. Will they condemn us for buying Kraft Mac & Cheese, since Kraft is owned by the Philip-Morris company, who knowingly sell addictive products that cause cancer and emphysema? What will they say about the cheap products we buy that are made by people who couldn't afford to buy the product they make themselves, since they're paid so poorly? Or about us depending on fossil fuels for transportation, when there are clean, non-polluting alternatives that would work just as well? And how about the millions we spend on entertainment while people are living homeless on the streets? What will they say about our society that centers around the mighty dollar? About the way we spend hours upon hours struggling our lives away to get this strange currency, often at the expense of growth, learning & exploration that could have made us better people while we lived? They'll be pulling our names off signs faster than you can blink, I betcha.

So the park system has asked the local populace to vote on several choices for the new name (hence the title of this post). I personally voted for the Maidu word--even though the locals won't bother learning how it's pronounced and will be slaughtering it for generations to come. I like the idea of giving some props to the Maidu--who have been so reduced in our time that I'd never heard of them until I took a class on local Anthropology. And I've lived here almost all my life! I never really liked the park's original name anyway--no one could agree on how it was supposed to be pronounced.

So I guess I'm saying--we should never honor bigotry or hatred--but we should be careful, lest we end up with no heroes at all. After all, nobody's perfect.

Every new beginning comes from some other beginning's end

Not that this is a new beginning, mind you. I just must be sufficiently bored to have started one of these "blog" things. And I think about different random things that I thought might be interesting to look in on later, when I'm in a different state of mind. And I also love that lyric, so it's worth repeating.

One thing I was thinking about this evening--does the LDS culture cause singles to be more concerned about age differences than someone outside the faith would be? Mormons are so marriage-obsessed that I find myself the male equivalent of an old maid at the ripe age of 32, looking at profiles on LDS dating sites, wondering what's wrong with me--so the tide of thoughts naturally flows in that sort of direction. It just makes me curious--I wonder if girls who are not LDS are less concerned about age differences? I don't really have any basis for conjecture in that area, only one girl who was 27 and said in her profile "no one over 30!" Personally I would be willing to date someone 5 years older, if we clicked, but that's just me. A somewhat vengeful part of me hopes that young lady stays single into her 30s and comes across a profile just like hers to put her in her place. Perhaps she'll feel differently with the shoe on the other foot, eh? It's just one of many requirements so many women seem to have on their profiles that I don't meet--so I try not to worry about it. But I do admit she's an anomaly, most LDS women don't seem near as concerned about age differences.

Playing alot of Guild Wars in the last few days, balanced out by alot of Burnout Paradise on the PS3 :) There really is nothing quite the same as boosting up to asinine speeds, making a huge jump, only to make a spectacular crash upon landing, watching your 3D rendered metal carcass smoosh up like an accordion. And Guild Wars new Eye of the North expansion is proving pretty enjoyable too. I spent an hour or two this afternoon "driving" a giant scorpion-turned-siege-tank around, killing monsters. Fun stuff.

My biggest frustration at the moment is my shiny new HTPC--which loses significant shine due to the fact I can't get it to go into standby, wake up to record, then go back into standby, without crashing. Tried everything save wiping the hard drive to start over, nothing works. Guess that's my next step.

Ah well, tomorrow starts another week of well-paid, but fairly meaningless work. Yay! :P

P.S. A Burnout Paradise vid for your enjoyment. :)