At a store last week I encountered a mother-daughter looking at Christmas cosmetic gift package displays, in the $5-$10 range. Mom asked what the girl wanted, she replied “lipstick”. I asked the girl why she wanted makeup, until she was ready to take a husband and make a home and family. Mom looked at me as if thinking something like, “I will have to remember that next week when she wants to start dating.” Or something, neither of the two replied to me, but the look I got from Mom was positive, and might or might not have been in agreement.

Grooming for safety first (clothes in good repair, no loose or baggy clothes around moving equipment, livestock including horses, etc.), hair kept clean and combed/brushed, teeth brushed and skin kept reasonably clean for good health, these should be enough to show that you are disciplined and respectful. That should be more than enough for anyone you aren’t taking for a spouse; and a spouse should prize the intimacy of the absence of commercial products as a barrier in your relationship as well as evidence you aren’t diverting valuable family and couple time for mere “attract a new mate” dress-up rituals.

If your particular fragrance, or dress style, or hair adornment is *the* thing that attracts the person you find yourself drawn to, then how do you ignore the fact that anyone *else* with that fragrance, dress style, or hair adornment is *likely* to draw his or her attention away from you? Stick to grooming basics, soap and water, comb and brush, your choice about a razor (above the neck, only!), and make your character, discipline, integrity, aptitude and interest in making a family the central point of attraction in your relationships.

In Lifetime value of a customer/cost per customer Seth points out:

Two things every business and non-profit needs to know:

How much does it cost you to get one new customer?

On average, what’s that customer worth over the relationship you have with her?

In relationship terms, I might re-phrase as, “How much time, effort, and preparation does it cost me to get a date?”, and “How long will I be satisfied with that date, and have that person in my life?”

Here is where Seth really ties this together.

On the other hand, legions of unsophisticated marketers are getting both sides of the equation wrong.

They invest a lot in hoopla, spin and hype to get strangers to notice them (once), making the cost of a connection high, and then, once they borrow a little attention, they put everything into a one shot transaction, which few people engage in, and those that do create little value, because the permission asset is then discarded.

Dates, not singles bars. Subscriptions, not vegomatics.

Don’t look for the brightest, hottest party animal. Look for the character, stability, and security of a prospective mate and co-parent. And treat them, and yourself, as if they were worth a lifetime of sharing.

The hole.

Some of us believe that the current crisis will just get worse — we don’t think that most politicians are willing to do what is best for the nation, if it won’t get them re-elected. Others of us think that the hole dug with regulations, hatred toward anyone “rich”, and racial divisiveness is too big to get past any time soon. Then there are the tree huggers that might actually have a couple of points, such as Peak Oil and the problems with “all that natural gas” in the US.

Peak Oil.

We are discovering new finds of oil at 1/4th the annual rate we are using up the last of the old oil fields, the oil that is left in old fields is getting much more expensive to extract and process, and new finds are more expensive to get to — and China has been contracting out most new finds for the next 20 years.

Natural Gas.

Natural gas has been considered mostly a waste product from producing oil, since it produces so much less energy and doesn’t produce near as much profit. Now, with the worldwide demand for oil continuing to rise — meaning there is nothing the US can do to curb the trend — and the oil being produced now and into the future only getting more expensive, in fits and starts, interest in natural gas is increasing. Unfortunately, there is still less profit in bringing more natural gas to market.

So the energy industry is turning to an interesting technique, hydraulic fracturing. They pump water laced with interesting, but toxic, chemicals underground, causing the rocks to break up and release the natural gas in great bunches, resulting in enough production to make enough money to keep the energy company in business.

Between the chemicals pumped underground, and the contaminated blown back up the well and stored in ponds at the well site — people and towns near the wells, within some number of miles, have been reporting poisoned water in their wells. Most have been quietly paid off, some supplied with drinking water by the energy companies running the fraccing wells.

One thing that Silicon Valley learned back in the 1970s and 1980s, where early semiconductor plants leaked toxic solvents into the ground accidentally, is that water moves. Contamination spreads. It was estimated that much of the water in Arizona wells, as one for-instance, took 100 years to get there from where rain water and stream water became an underground aquifer. To me this means that fracking results in profits to energy companies, but poisoning of a significant amount of water that over the decades will eliminate the water that most farms, towns, and cities rely on. We let the EPA cut the mileage of our vehicles by 20% to 80% because the exhaust, and leaded gas, poisoned the air somewhat less that fracking poisons our water.

And various parts of America are already familiar with the limits on clean water. What happens if the Colorado River (part of Southern California’s water source), or the livestock producers of the Midwest, Pacific Northwest, the dairies of America are affected?

Anyway.

Anyway, the point is that some fairly reasonable people think that times are getting harsher, and will get worse still before they get better. One scenario is that the US government and economy will collapse like the USSR did, back when so many of the regions split into separate nations, some warring on each other, except that in the US we are depending on an intact government and international shipping for food and necessities. Gulp. Others think that they need the guns and bunkers to ride out the tide of zombies, roving drug lord bands, and mobs of the unprepared. There are folk doing what they can to transition to a simpler, less dependent way of life, those consciously planning to adapt to a changing climate and economic environment and those focusing on local food security and backyard “homesteading” — or being community and personal resource people for the changes.

Dating, and the First Move.

A point that Crunchy Chicken (“Putting the mental in environmental”) makes in a recent post, “Community vs. Survivalism”, got me thinking.

The majority of people writing about Peak Oil and, therefore, proposing their version of the future are men. Perhaps it’s the extremists that stick out and are what people remember, but I’ve heard many complaints about the whole prediction that Peak Oil = Social and Economic Armageddon. . . . I, frankly, think this prediction is ridiculously inaccurate. I like to think it’s because I subscribe to a certain logic about how the world works. Others might argue that it’s because of my gender.

Of the women writing about Peak Oil, the predictions are much more metered. The conversation revolves mostly around preparation. I find it similar in concept to that whole “nesting in” period right before a woman gives birth. It’s like instinctually women know some trauma is coming and need to prepare by making the home comfortable and clean and storing up food and supplies. Nothing panicky, just getting things done. If the home is set up right, we somehow know that we can handle pretty much anything to come. Even if deep down we’re scared shirtless.

The male reaction must be based on something else because for many male Peak Oil writers out there, it degrades quickly into Ramboism. Load up the shotgun, honey, this is going to be bad! In fact, I would argue that many actually welcome this breakdown of society. But what could this be attributed to? Bear with me here while I stereotype half the population.

The human male, over the last several centuries, has been stuffed into a society where all their evolutionary self-preservation instincts are kept under lock and key. . . . In these survivalist scenarios, the men get to scratch that evolutionary itch. I think it’s safe to say that fantasy is one thing, but the reality is that most modern men are ill-equipped to deal with the violence that comes with anarchy.

Of course these are all just gross generalizations, but then again why am I hunkering down into gatherer mode, dehydrating strawberries and stockpiling peanut butter? I sure as hell ain’t pregnant.

And now that I’ve completely stereotyped everyone, I admit that you can’t reduce people down to instincts only. But, I do think it’s important to see where people are coming from, what their motivations are, conscious or otherwise and take that into consideration when reading someone else’s predictions. It’s all a crapshoot as far as the future goes, but it helps to process the unknown when looked at this way.

In part, my response got me thinking.

You described women and preparing for trauma by making the home comfortable, supportive – a redoubt, a fortress, a refuge.

How about portraying men (who were often raised by women) as finding a threat and attacking it. They see dangers and collapse of what is secure about them, and prepare for the worst, stocking up on essentials, building the remote refuse(sp), sharpening the spear and setting aside what weapons might be needed. Convert that attacking bear into a snug coverlet.

How is that for complementary stereotyping?

“Is it OK for her to make the first move?”

The title of a survey caught my eye, and brought it home for me.

Mostly when Cosmo or the fashion industry talks about “the first move”, that move is sexually oriented. That aspect, the sexual activity or invitation, establishes that the immediate goal is desire for a sexual partner.

It doesn’t have to be that way. What we call romance, or courtly love, was invented in Italy during the Renaissance. Before that the infamous words, “If you loved me, you would . . .” had not been uttered. There was almost no means for a sexually active woman to actually find a marriage partner. Bonding and marriage were for security, religious or economic obligation, or arrangement by the parents or community.

By which I mean to say, there is another way. Most guys only know about “wooing” as proving their sexual prowess; it is in all the magazines and bathroom grafiti that is what attracts a woman. Cosmo, Vogue, movies and TV, every jewelry store and most clothing stores rely on an undergarment or garment or accessory or scent to prove so sexually alluring that the intended object will be overcome, and become a grateful and adoring life partner.

I look around, and it seems to me that since the Sexual Revolution in the 1960s, when you get together for sex, that is mostly what you can hope for. Those that marry a responsible and reliable partner from their community with the intent to make a home and family, they have a bit better shot at making their partner a life partner.

When buying a horse and bringing it home, the saying goes, “Start out as you mean to go on.” Physical intimacy and sexual relations must be part of any family (or there won’t be any children to grow the community, secure the nation, or define the family). But most anyone can, with diligence and care, arrive at a reasonably satisfying compromise of intimacy. Most of what makes a family is security and profit. A couple should be able to achieve more together than either alone; a partnership. They should support each other’s roles in the relationship, nurture each other, and each is responsible for defending home, family, and honor. A couple is a member of the community in it’s own right, in addition to the roles of the individual adults.

If your first move is to establish reputation and understanding of the prospect’s character, life skills, values, and interest in family and community, with as little sexual content as possible (beyond your own basic grooming), your move establishes the start of a relationship that doesn’t have to be a hormone-driven escalator to survive. Whoever makes that “first move”.

Why the egg comes before the chicken.

I have found that it is easy enough to think about intimacy with someone you trust, respect, and have found to be honorable. Validating that a sex partner is honorable, honest, interested in a shared life and family, that gets really, really distracting for me, and for the relationship. “Touch here”, “softer” is easier to introduce than “don’t lie to me” and “why were you writing down that hot chick’s twitter account?”

Reading this article, the word that comes to mind is fealty. Fealty, swearing loyalty, service, and devotion to one who is your social and governmental superior, doesn’t make for a take-home-to-mother relationship.

Yet devoting yourself (as opposed to taking a partner with) to someone because they are accomplished in business, in government, in looks or media exposure, in science or intelligence or a great reputation as a sex partner for lots and lots of people(?This would be a good thing, if you wanted a keeper??) — this smacks of fealty, of a gift of your devotion and service that the ‘superior’ will use you with respect.

Just as with many other relationship errors, choosing an intelligent partner because they are intelligent (and not because they are interested in making a family and home with you, that they have many good and healthy emotional ties in their lives, that the are honest, respectful, that they are respected and trusted in their community, and that they live the difference between humor and joy in their lives, and increase your joy, comfort, and security, etc.) — the intelligent person that is aware of their intelligence may well pick and choose who they will learn from. They may have settled on ‘must have an advanced college degree’ to be worth hearing, they may only hear what people say if it agrees with their own understanding — or only learn from books or the internet. And that could well blind them to problems with their lives, or with whoever they are with. By relying on ‘references’ instead of their own experiences, they may even be unable to learn from their mistakes, outside of their chosen field (and sometimes within their field as well — bringing the spectre of deep-seated anger to their relationships).

As for ‘avoid intelligent people’, that is horrible as well. By picking someone that is lacking in so-called normal attributes or abilities, you display a degree of disrespect, of arrogant “I will care for you, poor thing” superiority that you poison the relationship before you start. That is also something that shouldn’t happen to someone that is emotionally available, because you start out throwing up barriers, excuses why you never get close to the (inferior?) one, nor let them get close to you.

I recall an Ann Landers column from several decades ago. A woman wrote that her husband, and engineer, was so intelligent that she didn’t understand much of what he said. The advice to this lady was that only the speaker can improve communication — there is nothing the one hearing can do to make the words or delivery more understandable. And the advice stated something about, “If he is so intelligent, he should be able to talk so she could understand.” Which sounds nice, and defensive. And frees the lady with the problem from feeling guilty. She might take this advice, and confront her husband with “There is a problem. What can we do about it?” Of course, she could also note the words and topics she doesn’t understand, and look them up in the expectation she might improve her worth to her husband as a partner. At the same time, if she isn’t understanding him — has he given up communicating to her? Are there values and goals she has failed to communicate to him, that he is content to leave her out of so much of his thinking and his life?

The time when ‘too intelligent to talk to’ was an accepted part of home life should be well in the past, but it isn’t. Inviting refusals and inabilities to communicate and barriers to respect into a relationship should be well understood today. Maybe we can teach today’s children better, and help our friends to find more satisfaction and joy in relationships.

Thanks for a great post, Natalie.

I wasn’t out drinking and abusing my body. I simply loved to go out and dance.

One of the hazards of relationships is that we think there is a special, magical, romantic and wonderful form of closeness and bonding that we can choose, or that chooses us, once we “find that special someone.”

I don’t think it works that way.

I think it matters what we have done and not done, as to whether we will be someone that is even able to participate in a meaningfully shared life of passion, honor, and respect.

Consider the gymnast, the acrobat. Training young, the acrobat will always, even after leaving the activity for something different in life, have the attitude, the mental agility, to consider movements and agility beyond merely walking, sitting, and lying down. Without the training and background, someone new to acrobatics, or blacksmithing, or hairstyling, has a lot of physical, obvious skills to master – as well as a significant change in their view of who they are an where their place is in the community and the world.

Which is a long way of saying, I think dancing is good. When done in a family atmosphere, with lots of older folk to frown on ‘frolicking’. Elsewise, you are hanging out at a singles event, and singles events are horribly crippling ways to maim yourself, emotionally, for life.

Cosmo sells a lot of magazines and lipstick, selling “Oh, how can I find the best sexual partner?” The reality is that what has been called a ‘long term relationship’ should be what used to be call a ‘mate’. I call this a shared life, with a respected life partner and co-parent.

Sex is exciting. But dancing at singles events (or rock concerts, or mingling at a bar) is about sexual foreplay. The alcohol serves to ‘release inhibitions’ that let you separate the body sensations of the moment from an ethical and moral assessment of the partner-of-the-moment. You don’t want your partner, or yourself, to be doing that later on should you marry, mate, handfast or whatever tradition is meaningful to you that forms a lifelong partnership between respectful, trustworthy, honorable companions.

Steve Harvey claims their can be no cheating without a complete breakdown of character. Learning to enjoy yourself at singles events – like dancing at a bar or rock concert – sets you up for just that specific failure of character. Instead of focusing on the character, background, and emotional connectedness of your prospective partner (or failing to even notice potential partners aside from your won beloved), at singles events you focus on your feelings of the moment, on how successfully this guy or gal excites you, at the moment.

Winning sex partners is a life skill, one you never really let go of. And it does not make for a secure shared life.

I suspect that a profile of happily married couples vs. divorced people would tally with number of chaperoned and community affair dating patterns vs. ‘night life’ activity.

If you want to live in your community and family, and live the kinds of values that are successful there – you cannot “master” the skills of being an alluring sex partner attractive to unmet people. And you cannot let intimate moments distract from your awareness of the trustworthiness, honor, honesty, and suitability of your partner.

Dancing is fine. Organize a dance at the senior center, ask your grandparents to throw a dance. With no alcohol, and know that everyone invited is of sound character and held to responsible, public behavior. Hint: If he won’t dance in front of Grandpa, he won’t dance after he moves in.

A home.

In the middle is a ‘home’, adults that establish a consensus about the culture they will establish together. Culture – I think of this as the meanings of what is right, and what is wrong, the traditions observed from birthdays to religious festivals, and rituals including who makes the coffee in the morning. And who makes the money and career decisions, and the amount of discussion involved.

Hint: Expecting to change the culture after establishing the home often drives a partner away, breaking the home.

Many of us grew up in a home with parents, some degree of security and stability, some expression of respect and intimacy, and with some degree of character in the adults. That is the culture we start with. As we encounter the social engineering principles at school, the capitalist manipulation of fashion and other advertising industries, some of what we started with is put aside, some replaced with other rituals and values, and some added. That is what we bring to an intimate relationship.

What I consider a healthy home rests pretty much in the center of this ‘culture’ spectrum.

Coincidental cohabitation.

On one end of the spectrum is the room mates, those that happen to share a space for a time with no intermingling of culture. A bar pickup, a long distance relationship, and many dysfunctional matings, marriages, and ‘couple’ arrangements. There is no real blending of cultures, not comparison and evaluation of values, of traditions, of rituals. No evaluation of the partner for character, respect, honor, etc.

Taking possession.

One partner chooses the other, and by deception, intimidation, or default (the other partner won’t or isn’t capable of contributing), establishes her/his own culture as dominant, and belittles, denigrates, or dismisses entirely any values or heritage of the other. A kept woman or man would be one example, many abusive relationships fall on this end of my ‘home culture’ spectrum, and is the real hazard to everyone of underage partnering in an intimate relationship – one partner isn’t capable of evaluating and adjusting to a consensus culture.

On a personal level, the dominant partner is unfairly cast into a role of taking responsibility for the other. Possessing and owning another harms both parties.

Home culture wise, the denigration of the culture of any partner deprives the home, and those that dwell and grow there, of that significant source of values, of skills and knowledge. In addition, the schism between partners degrades the security and nurture value of the home. Abuse, intentional or otherwise, warps and damages all that this home touches. Character flaws are emphasized, disrespect is dominant, and hurts about to everyone.

Many such homes are ostracized by more family-valued communities, a natural reaction that somewhat encapsulates and contains much of the harm that stems from an unhealthy member of the community. Isolation empowers the estrangement within the dysfunctional home, while limiting the degree of influence on the community.

Do you choose a partner for recreational dating, or as a prospect for a life mating?

This actually matters.

As a decadent, affluent society, much of America and other western nations have been influenced by fashion advertising, examples of people held up as ‘beautiful’, and many other artificial, secondary characteristics as being meaningful or attractive in a partner. In harsher times, historically, a tradition of staying within similar types of family backgrounds was considered a safer way to find a partner. Today many adults life outside contact with their parent families. Those from more traditional backgrounds note the rising incidence of births to unwed parents, many of them planned. They note the decline in number of couples marrying, and the still increasing number of marriages ending in divorce.

The end is near! Repent!

It may well be that the end of cheap energy – peak oil – is in process of changing America’s – and the world’s – prospects of living as we have been. Peak oil notes that in 2006, the world’s ability to produce oil on any given day fell below the world’s demand for oil on that day. As other nations continue to grow – China, Indonesia, African nations, India, etc. – that world wide demand will continue to rise, causing interruptions in oil from time to time, and prices to rise and fall – but never again fall as low as before. One principle oil exporter, Saudia Arabia, could sell oil and break even at $18 a barrel, a decade ago. In 2009 that break even point was $68 a barrel. Oil fields that are less full than when discovered require additional drilling to keep up production, to utilize smaller pools and pockets. This keeps getting more expensive at the same time the flow rate that the field will support is dropping.

And we are finding new reserves of oil at 1/4th the rate that we are using oil today.

Then there is climate change.

The climate of the 1950s was considered, back forty years ago, to be the mildest decade on record. It only makes sense that the weather keep getting less mild.

There can be little doubt that the environment is changing; whether this has anything to do with what we do as people is a matter for some debate; I sure haven’t bought the greenhouse gas theory as the primary driver of climate change. I do know that respected scientists have noted all the planets are warming right now, suggesting that what seems to be climate change right now, actually is climate change.

Flooding in South America is important. Many crops down there have been ruined, which diminishes the amount of food in the world. In Russia the drought-lost crops and Russia’s decision to freeze exports of grain to countries that depended on that grain for food have reduced the amount of food in the world. Droughts and rain fall changes in the US diminished the amount of grain produced. Climate change bids fair to raise the food riots of a couple years back to more urgent levels. The vast amount of grain diverted to produce ethanol in the US, and in South America, will only heighten international tensions. Rising food prices may cause many Chinese and other peoples to starve – often reducing the number of people working factories making, say, laptop computers, sneakers, and barbecue grills.

The US faces a significant debt deflation crisis. One speaker calls the economic effects of bailouts and national debt – coupled with rising energy prices – “the end of investment”. It is possible that never again will a private home be considered an investment; never again will the selling price be higher than the purchase price. Which will devastate many families and the nation.

There may well be cause to consider that life may become rougher, and that we would need a partner suited to surviving and making a strong home with us even more than before.

You may or may not feel that your partner must be chosen, as the pioneers did, to be a defender of the home, capable of enduring hardship and to work with you to survive. That is OK. But we need to consider that the home we build – not the house, the structure of cement and boards – but the culture and enduring relationship we form, will stand or fall on the first, most important choice we make: Is this partner-prospect suitable for me and the home I want to build?

Changes in the past

Fifty or sixty years ago, many religious leaders panicked. The 1960s with the Summer of Love, Woodstock and its rampant, public sexuality and nudity and drug use, and perhaps even worse than the sexuality, the openly practiced promiscuity. In a way, these community and religious leaders were fighting a losing battle, as fashion ads and a fickle media came to titillate and entice Americans to buy, to be ‘modern’ in their mores and attitudes. The rock and roll of the 1950s and 1960s brought sex and promiscuity into the homes. Playboy magazine became an accepted national publication, not just a hidden book of smut (they had been around for centuries).

Add in Women’s Liberation. What I recall of the Women’s Lib beginnings is tainted (I was never a woman, to my knowledge). But the greatest outrage was that many crafts, professions, and trades were considered ‘men only’. The mostly Christian culture at the time held pretty close to the Biblical teachings of ‘Man is the head of the house; woman is the wife and keeper of the home and raiser of the children.” Back 20 years before, America like most of Europe had sent many of its young men, and many not so young, to fight in World War II, and drew women into the factories and other work positions to enable the war effort. Most men were out of the country at the time, so they never saw what that meant to the home, with Mom off at work – until they returned. After the war, as the armies were disbanded and soldiers returned home, their notions of family and home were dreams of what they had known before leaving.

Which left a certain amount of tension smoldering. Advertisers pushing cosmetics and an ‘urban’ and ‘sophisticated’ image – and lucrative market – created a demand for appliances, for cosmetics, for a life lived in the public eye, with life values played out as if every woman were a movie star.

Today we look at Ma and Pa Kettle – revered comedy movie stars, in their day – and cannot imagine the lifestyle they portray. The snapshot they lampoon of life during the Great Depression was actually reasonably affluent for the time. They had secure shelter, food, their clothes were not new but in fair condition.

Contrast that with one of the transition series, The Dick Van Dyke Show, with Mary Tyler Moore. This set and life still defined woman as “wife” – the working craftsman Rose Marie was single, to avoid crossing that particular barrier. But the furniture, the clothes, and fashions – these were all very effective in pushing the advertised, marketed values of fashion and cosmetics into the average American home.

Somewhere in there, despite the “Summer of Love”, “Make Love Not War”, “Free Love” generation, the way a mate was chosen saw a bit of change.

Instead of looking for a man of standing in the church and community, a man of good character and family (‘breeding’), instead what was important was good cash flow – expensive gifts or extravagant parties. Public drinking, alcohol and expensive foods on dates, dates without chaperones. These replaced any ‘old fashioned’ nonsense.

Fascination with movies and fashion elevated music, movie, and TV stars. Local guys learned to appeal to women as if they were dashing, and accomplished, and fun. Women began to use fashion to dress and act the part of seductress, as men learned to seduce – rather than to coldy examine a potential partner for being suitable as co-parent and life mate. Choices to marry began to be individual, and not guided by family and parents.

Today

We like to think that what we do today is eternal truth, and that we will be happy if we just do things a bit better.

The right lipstick, the right cologne, the right nekkid picture sent to the right guy, and we will get the attention of the one we will marry. We can read about how Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus (Or Women are from Venus, Men are Idiots). We can look on Facebook and count up the number of friends, the killer apps.

The Untold Story

A decade ago or so, the rise in teenage pregnancy rates became a national issue. One campaign focused on a half-baked ‘Just Say No’ simple abstinence plan. What occurred to me is that the problem was really, really basic.

When should you have sex?

You won’t like the answer I came up with.

You should have sex in a mated, shared-life relationship. With a mate chosen to be a desirable co-parent to your children and life mate.

And you should plan on raising children when you enter a shared life relationship. Thus, you should only be with the person(s) you have chosen for an adult role in your shared life.

The recreational sex part, the fashion and titillating sexy-as-cute-and-fun part? The reality is these stem from manipulating you for profit (by the fashion and cosmetics industry, and others out to exploit your body and your money). In my view, ItsAboutMakingBabies.com.

Confusion

What this means is that in the 50 to 80 years since the initial, Biblical definition of what it means to be a man and woman in a family way began to erode, we have had two or three generations now when the parents have lost touch with what it means to select a life mate, rather than shop for a cute fashion statement, or fun sex partner.

And America has lost the answer to the question – why should our children make babies? If we could teach them when, and why to make babies, then the rest should be much simpler.

When?

In December 2006 (New year’s eve!) I wrote about Family Values for Dating. No sex until your parents – or trusted friends – approve of the candidate on the basis of being a good co-parent and life mate. This still makes sense to me.

We have to realize, that when we couple-up, join our attention and time with another, we are actively participating in our community. As a couple we make different decisions that we did when single, and our community treats us differently as well. That first act of sex should be special, and intimate – but it isn’t a private, personal-only act like brushing our teeth. We should be assured that our prospect stands up to scrutiny, and that we have some family and community assent that he/she is a reasonable and appropriate choice. Not because we need permission, but because what we contemplate will have a noticeable and long lasting impact on our family and friends.

And we cannot make a reasoned choice for intimate companion, if we don’t have good ties with our parents, or at least a handful of trusted friends.

And then, when the unsuitable clown wanders off to someone else, the cry is “I can’t believe he left me!” She isn’t as pretty, or as smart, or as generous, or as forgiving. Et cetera. She (in this case) seems to need validation, that she was “good enough” for him.

It’s almost like it doesn’t matter what shitty qualities these guys have – we want the validation.

The problem is not missing the bad boy

The first thing to recognize is that this reaction is to be expected. Only, it is not validation, so much, as it is a normal part of the cycle of grief. Grief – as in when a loved one dies, or is lost from our lives. Our mind might realize that The One We Chose is alive, merely not around, but the body knows that “Gone is Gone.” Thus we grieve as the bonds to the Departed exert pressures on us, forces forged in genetic memory, a relic of surviving as a community, as a species, as a family.

Grief. The (Elizabeth Kubler-Ross) cycle of stages, recognized as: Denial; Anger; Bargaining; Depression; and Acceptance. These stages occur in different orders, and repeat differently, for each person, and for each loss. “The heart doesn’t count seasons as the world does.” (Kung Fu TV show)

Is the “Why wasn’t I good enough” part of denial or bargaining? I don’t know, I am not convinced they are different, and it doesn’t matter.

Validation, a weakness or red flag?

NML addresses the issue of validation, of letting yourself depend on the opinions on others to define your own worth.

Validation is a part of everyone’s lives. Parents use approval or disapproval as a (very) powerful force to encourage desired behavior, and discourage unwanted behavior. Employers use feedback, the larger context for validation, in the form of reprimands, warnings, promotions, raises, and firing.

A greeting, whether from family, friend, or stranger, is a blessing on the day. The often trite recognition and acceptance we receive is positive feedback – validation. We all view the day as brighter with each greeting we receive or exchange – the balance of blessings has been tipped, after all.

A snub, insult, or shunning diminishes us, as well as diminishes the person offering disrespect.

Feedback is how relations with others help us grow and guides us

A conscious choice

Feed back – validation – is a measure of achieving a goal. Validation is never a fruitful goal.

Enjoy donuts? Eat a bunch – and you grow satiated. Want to feel happy? Chase happiness and you lose all that is of real value – healthy emotional bonds, knowledge of yourself, engagement with your community, a strong and healthy family life. Enjoy winning? Gamble for more chances to win – and even when you win the gamble or survive the risk, you lose the respect of others, your trust in people (opposing gamblers!), and you fail those that depend on you for honor, integrity, an example of wholesome living, and what you might have contributed to the well being of yourself and others.

Validation as a goal is a problem.

Validation, applause, winning, acceptance – as a goal, they share a common failing. They don’t endure, and they don’t represent completion when validation is the goal. “Success” is never enough. More just leads to wanting even more.

Your sense of worth of yourself should be strong enough to actively choose who you will and will not associate with. You should have respect for yourself, to want to be an asset to your family, to your friends, and to your community. Your should have respect for the culture of the home and community you were raised in, and the community you have chosen to live in now.

Validation as a result of living a respectful, honorable life is a blessing and reward.

Don’t confuse the two.

What does “seeking validation” mean?

When you seek validation, several things are going on. For one – you have lost your goal. When you build your life on something solid, something fundamentally true and steadfast, approval or disapproval guides you to focus your energies and your attention on improving your actions and correcting mistakes (anything that diverts energy and attention from your goals), especially mistakes that cost or hurt others.

When you skip that first step, and strive for glory, or the happy home – the approval and disapproval of others becomes a path to chaos, to madness. And leaves you open to abuse and manipulation by the predators of the world.

Grow or die

In school I was taught that the one rule in biology is Grow or Die. Any organism or group of organisms will grow and flourish – or begin to die, to diminish in numbers or health.

Choosing to live includes selecting the “community” we will live and work in. Relationships between members of healthy families and communities are usually disciplined. There is usually respect for each other, that might be expressed in different ways in different communities.

When we choose who to spend time with – we establish a community. Friends, family – lovers.

When we choose to bless someone with our time and energy, we might consider what that choice means in context with a healthy, respectful, disciplined (honest and honorable), trusting community. Sometimes this considerations as “meeting someone I could take home to meet Mother,” a euphemism for being someone acceptable and respectable in the community. When we choose for individual, chance-of-the-moment reasons, or for fantasies – validation – the results are pretty predictable, that someone will get hurt.

An “affair of the heart”, a fling, a tryst in secret, these are all choices made in search of “sexual fulfillment” in despite of the soul’s need for enrichment and light.

Choosing the bad boy.

The problem with missing the bad boy is choosing a bad boy. You choose a bad boy to rebel against parents or other teachers or wise people. You choose a bad boy for specific kinds of feedback or validation.

You choose a bad boy because you don’t feel worthy of better. And a bad boy will surely bring home to you the message that you deserve him. Otherwise you wouldn’t have him in your life. You would have left, rejected him, or thrown him out, if you had bothered to make his acquaintance in the first place.

You cannot look to others to make you a whole and healthy individual, a respected and trusted member of your family and community.

But you can choose to cherish people of respect and honor. And learn to love from among that class of people. You can choose to spend your time with people that value and contribute to family and community, that respect and trust good people.

And if you aren’t meeting good boys and good men, and good women, too, that can change.

Choose to live and love among good people.

Sounds simple, doesn’t it?

Very few people need sound, competent advice, when everything is going well and the people in their lives are at least as honorable and competent as themselves.

Which brings me back to . . me. I don’t have the studies, and counseling experience (not paid, at least – I have always treasured my own insights). And brings me to what I offer here, at SmartAtLove.com

I grew up fairly clueless, and a bit nerdy, too, in a conservative home.  At home we went to a Lutheran church, in a remote, isolated rural area.  May City, IA boasted a population of 75 around 1965 – counting farms within 5 miles, and shows seven blocks on Google Maps today.  My dad farmed, Mom worked part time.  I served 7 years in the US Navy, got my BS in computer science, and have been stranded “between jobs” since 2001.  This is the important part – I have had too much time to think.

Trying to make ends meet had me trying new things, and meeting new people.  Doris was wonderful, a gifted and experienced Crafter.  She helped me set up and survive my first craft shows (steel cutouts).  And also got me thinking about dating again.  Our time together was mostly work or friend time, but we did touch on some personal topics.

In 2004/5 I did some substitute teaching.  This was interesting, and tough, too.  Classroom discipline is the art of keeping a room full of student’s attention focused on the work at hand.  I floundered from one recommended resource to another – and lucked out, when I found “Tools for Teaching“.  This is one immensely empowering book.  The classroom specifics might seem uninteresting – until you realize that the “red zone” rule – a child’s attention wanders if the teacher doesn’t pass within 4-5 feet every minute or three.  Which is the solution to children running about the grocery store – keep them within 4 feet, and your time between meltdowns increases.  Let them wander farther, and they establish their own impetus for exploring and interacting with the world.  There are lots of insights and guides for parents, for teachers, and administrators.  Even older students can infer some useful pointers.  Great book.

And Tools for Teaching got me started looking for clues to behavior.

While subbing at a High School English class, a question on an assigned “describe an ideal date” exercise started me thinking.  I challenged one girl, “If he won’t be a good mate and co-parent for your children – how can you afford to spend time with him now?”  My blog ItsAboutMakingBabies.com came from that.

I started ItsAboutMakingBabies with two complaints.  First, that fashion and cosmetics are properly applied to courting rituals, and have nothing to do with beauty or being “pretty” or fun.  Sexy, provocative, these have to do with making babies.  The second complaint was that, as a society, we have no clear firm and clear purpose to teach our children: Why should we make babies?  In particular, why should I, or you, or your child, prepare for, select a mate for, build a home for, and make a baby?

It took me about four years to come to an answer that satisfies me, for now.  We make babies to preserve the family, the community, and the nation we belong to. If we respect and honor the home we grew up in, the adult roles we learned will be moved to make babies to express our respect and honor for the home and culture we were raised in, by instructing children in those values and experiences that formed us.

Following various blogs that seemed to make sense, or were entertaining, I discovered NML at BaggageReclaim.co.uk.  Baggage Reclaim is a special and wonderful resource for those people that find all relationships go bad sooner or later, and mostly sooner – but they want to find a way out of the bad relationship zone.