Dearest readers, I do not know about you, but here I have heard about two different relationship scenarios in Toronto area and most other urban suburban metro areas in North America. The suburban married couples had a lot more babies than I expected to hear about because the media does not push good news (for the most part). Why would they, after all? it gets less clicks and advertiser bucks. The other scenario, and this I hear from more than a few guys, are city dwellers jumping into relationships, many times due to pressures from the girls who got affected by city lockdowns and social isolation way, way more it seems; these relationships are breaking down like you would not believe (again, for the most part). Most of the time, the reason for this breakdown is heavy, unbridled shit testing done almost exclusively by girls. While shit testing is not a new phenomenon, the one area it goes to more and more is the denial of a guy being a guy- saying things like you are not a man because of x, y or z. Or, you cannot be a man because you do not have x, y or z. Well, I had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine who broke up with his girlfriend and, believe it or not, he always initiates breakups (to the best of my knowledge). I talked to him about why and this is how this topic came up. What he said, dearest readers, I think is worth considering if you are a guy. Read on and decide, it is up to you.
So, the conversation really took off after my friend told me he broke up with his pandemic sweetheart (sweetheart being a bit of a misnomer, as it turns out). I asked him why, who initiated it and so on. He said he did, and I did not take kindly to that because, from my point of view, he is always the heart breaker for initiating these breakups. To most, he would seem to be a player or a serial dater. As I expressed that, he got irritated and said he would finally explain a few things to me about himself and his perspective on people's roles in relationships. He said he firmly believes that excessive and/or unhinged shit testing by someone who is supposed to be your romantic partner, especially when she attacks your identity, is something that can rarely be tolerated for too long, and never fully forgiven. He does ok for himself, but he said things got to a point where she would say he was not a man because he was not making more money and doing certain other things. That, he said, is an example of something completely unacceptable. Having someone attack your identity based on your earnings, appearance, strength and so on were a no go if you want to have a long term relationship, he claimed; to him it was as simple as that.
I was not fully taken aback but I did say that yes, dating out there can be rough and girls have certain expectations from guys, especially if they are to let the guy lead in the relationship. For example, it is difficult for a woman nowadays to let her guy lead in a relationship if he does not make more than her. My friend looked at me and said that even he thought like that for a while when he was younger, because that is what society sees as progress. However, for a long time since then, some life events of his made him snap back to reality. He said that only a man knows what a man is, and this will forever remain as such. I thought about it for a second and fired back by saying that I know what a dog is without being a dog. He said I was wrong. Only a dog knows what a dog is, and us humans can describe a dog based on our own understanding, experience, knowledge and so on. If we knew what a dog was the way a dog knows what it is, we would not have to train a dog to communicate with us and understand us- to us this would be innate! Next, he said that ok, I was a unique category of girl (fair point haha), but for most guys when they are born, do doctors shit test them on their strength or income before they say they are guys, or are they born as such and shit testing does not apply? If it does not apply then, it does not apply at any other point in time. If you do not shit test and attack a baby's identity, you will not proceed to do that to an adult and expect to ever fully be on their good side again. Once it is done, it is done. He said that, for him personally, at that point a girl can choose to stay with him but should never expect complete forgiveness for having done this. Can you build a relationship on top of a lack of complete forgiveness? Maybe. But that is a topic all on its own.
I countered that this entire perspective may be coming from a place of pride or ego. He said no, not at all. He explained that he has to be himself regardless of all these ancillary criteria (had to look the word up haha) that girls shit test with because they think this will make things better, where in fact it makes things worse, way worse. I asked him what all that means. He said it is simple. If he as a guy exhibits competent, strong leadership qualities, he is to lead in the relationship regardless of who makes more money. He said he is a guy who knows he can lead well and he has to fulfill that role in his relationship. To be honest, he is not lying about being great in a leadership role. Next he said hey, another thing girls shit test on is strength, e.g. that guy said something to me at the bar so go fight him or else you are not a man. He said that a man has to choose asymmetric opportunities in life, meaning that the payoff is much greater than the risk. He thinks a girl should not be stronger than the guy she is with, but as for the rest a man should be confident about his strength as long as he uses it the smart way, and he should react decisively when shit tested on it.
Interesting, very interesting. I asked him how to make a guy do better. He said it is simple- just ask him and explain why; he will never become a better man for you by you telling him he is not one because of x, y or z. He will, however, become better for the next girl and she will reap the benefits. He says that asking and explaining shows underlying love, care and respect for your significant other, and a willingness to stick around and grow together.
By the end, dearest readers, my mind really was blown. it reinforced the value of reading past the headlines and the first paragraph, so to speak.
So, the conversation really took off after my friend told me he broke up with his pandemic sweetheart (sweetheart being a bit of a misnomer, as it turns out). I asked him why, who initiated it and so on. He said he did, and I did not take kindly to that because, from my point of view, he is always the heart breaker for initiating these breakups. To most, he would seem to be a player or a serial dater. As I expressed that, he got irritated and said he would finally explain a few things to me about himself and his perspective on people's roles in relationships. He said he firmly believes that excessive and/or unhinged shit testing by someone who is supposed to be your romantic partner, especially when she attacks your identity, is something that can rarely be tolerated for too long, and never fully forgiven. He does ok for himself, but he said things got to a point where she would say he was not a man because he was not making more money and doing certain other things. That, he said, is an example of something completely unacceptable. Having someone attack your identity based on your earnings, appearance, strength and so on were a no go if you want to have a long term relationship, he claimed; to him it was as simple as that.
I was not fully taken aback but I did say that yes, dating out there can be rough and girls have certain expectations from guys, especially if they are to let the guy lead in the relationship. For example, it is difficult for a woman nowadays to let her guy lead in a relationship if he does not make more than her. My friend looked at me and said that even he thought like that for a while when he was younger, because that is what society sees as progress. However, for a long time since then, some life events of his made him snap back to reality. He said that only a man knows what a man is, and this will forever remain as such. I thought about it for a second and fired back by saying that I know what a dog is without being a dog. He said I was wrong. Only a dog knows what a dog is, and us humans can describe a dog based on our own understanding, experience, knowledge and so on. If we knew what a dog was the way a dog knows what it is, we would not have to train a dog to communicate with us and understand us- to us this would be innate! Next, he said that ok, I was a unique category of girl (fair point haha), but for most guys when they are born, do doctors shit test them on their strength or income before they say they are guys, or are they born as such and shit testing does not apply? If it does not apply then, it does not apply at any other point in time. If you do not shit test and attack a baby's identity, you will not proceed to do that to an adult and expect to ever fully be on their good side again. Once it is done, it is done. He said that, for him personally, at that point a girl can choose to stay with him but should never expect complete forgiveness for having done this. Can you build a relationship on top of a lack of complete forgiveness? Maybe. But that is a topic all on its own.
I countered that this entire perspective may be coming from a place of pride or ego. He said no, not at all. He explained that he has to be himself regardless of all these ancillary criteria (had to look the word up haha) that girls shit test with because they think this will make things better, where in fact it makes things worse, way worse. I asked him what all that means. He said it is simple. If he as a guy exhibits competent, strong leadership qualities, he is to lead in the relationship regardless of who makes more money. He said he is a guy who knows he can lead well and he has to fulfill that role in his relationship. To be honest, he is not lying about being great in a leadership role. Next he said hey, another thing girls shit test on is strength, e.g. that guy said something to me at the bar so go fight him or else you are not a man. He said that a man has to choose asymmetric opportunities in life, meaning that the payoff is much greater than the risk. He thinks a girl should not be stronger than the guy she is with, but as for the rest a man should be confident about his strength as long as he uses it the smart way, and he should react decisively when shit tested on it.
Interesting, very interesting. I asked him how to make a guy do better. He said it is simple- just ask him and explain why; he will never become a better man for you by you telling him he is not one because of x, y or z. He will, however, become better for the next girl and she will reap the benefits. He says that asking and explaining shows underlying love, care and respect for your significant other, and a willingness to stick around and grow together.
By the end, dearest readers, my mind really was blown. it reinforced the value of reading past the headlines and the first paragraph, so to speak.