Last week I read a column in the New York Times by former Obama Administration economist Peter Orszag. He is commonly known as an incredibly dweeby guy with a lisp who only dates smoking hot women. You don't have to tell me twice. I plan to drop "percentage of GDP" and "Keynsian" into all future conversations with attractive single ladies. His column focused on the age old debate: is talent something you're born with or something you acquire through long hours of practice? He cited a book on ping pong that he had just read. (Are ping ping books also a turn on, ladies?). But folks the evidence is in: if you work hard enough, you too can become ping pong champion of the world.
I was struck by the online reader comments. VICIOUS opposition to the notion that natural born talent is overrated. A few scattered readers then attacked the authors of those comments for being player haters, noting their own lack of greatness is probably due to laziness they just don't want to face up to. Can't we all get along? Oh wait--it's the Internet. No we can't.
I had just read the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell in which roughly the same issue is discussed and Gladwell also posits that those who achieve greatness at a particular skill worked tirelessly to become great and innate ability had little to do with it. It was a combination of everyday intelligence and work ethic with opportunities--often quite random and lucky--that some people are given. Bill Gates was lucky enough to live down the street from the University of Washington computer lab at a time when there were virtually no other such places in the world--so he spent hours and hours there and developed his computer skills. The Beatles were given an opportunity to play endless 8 hour per night gigs at a strip club in Hamburg, Germany and were almost forced to become a great band by sheer accident. Their manager did say they were given powerful incentives in the form of tons of booze and babes . (I'm talking about the Beatles here, not Bill Gates ). Studies apparently show it takes 10,000 hours of practice to become a master at a skill and Gates and the Beatles both put in their 10,000 hours. But they both did it with a little help from their friends--with the Fab Four having much more fun friends who didn't just want to hold their hand. More of the "why don't we do it in the road?" demographic of ladies.
Okay fine. Work hard, get a break or two, and become great. Sounds suspiciously like a cliche-ridden commencement speech, doesn't it? But I do happen to mostly agree with this. Granted, not everyone can be Michael Jordan. Take me, for example. I am 5'8", very white, and have a best corrected visual acuity of 20/300. The fact that our driveway growing up was on a steep hill and prevented us from putting up a basketball hoop so I could spend 10,000 hours working on my sweet jump shot has absolutely nothing to do with why I'm not a six time NBA champion today. But......there are plenty of 6'6", athletic, shooting guards with 20/20 vision in the NBA even as we speak and none of them are Michael Jordan. Why? I suspect God given talent has nothing to do with it. "It's gotta be the shoes", then? Maybe but focus, practice, and determination probably have a lot more to do with it than Air Jordans.
But why? Why do some people commit themselves to 10,000 hours of practice on ONE thing while others don't? Don't they realize how many cool I-Phone apps are out there? Quit working so hard! Gladwell can say Bill Gates fell into success by living so close to UDub's computer lab, but why did he choose to spend endless hours there? The Beatles might have been given a shot in Hamburg, but why didn't they turn down an offer to play dives in Deutschland? Not a seaside gig in Barcelona or the Riviera in the summertime, but GERMANY. The home of hamburgers, Hitler and Hasselhoff.
It's been said that it isn't what you do; it's what you don't do. I happen to be close personal friends with several NBA players. (Okay fine. If you really want to get technical here, I'm following them on Twitter. No more questions!). Those boys seem to love their video games. Was Jordan an Atari owner in the early 80's? What if he had become obsessed with becoming the greatest Frogger player on the planet and smoking blunts? Would he have been traded to the Clippers after his third year for Benoit Benjamin and some cash? People who achieve greatness either consciously or intuitively figure something out which the rest of us struggle to grasp: video games suck, TV sucks, and the Internet sucks. By endlessly practicing a skill, they really aren't missing too much.
But it can't be just that. I wonder if the high achievers and geniuses among us are less narcissistic than the rest of us. (At least while they're still climbing the ladder). I know that sounds completely counter-intuitive but maybe it isn't. Think of the myth of Narcissus himself. He drowned after spending endless hours admiring his own reflection in the river. What wasn't Narcissus doing by that river? He wasn't practicing the butterfly, the breast stroke--or any other skill for that matter. I wonder if there is an inverse relationship between success and self-absorption. When you are spending all your time in a computer lab, playing and practicing in Hamburg, or practicing free throw shooting alone in a gym at midnight, you can't possibly be staring in the mirror or discussing your lousy childhood. High achievers must be a real nightmare for psychiatrists, therapist, and Pfizer Corporation execs because they are so busy engaging themselves in activities they don't have time to get a prescription filled.
But that's it. A narcissist is a person who wants to make the world a reflection of themselves. A genius is someone who want to make themselves a reflection of the world. Working to become a "genius" is an act of self-abandonment. It may be true that "we" are unique and our fingerprints and DNA are all unlike anyone else's, but surrendering oneself to work is learning to immerse ourselves in the river of life not using the water to reflect ourselves. (The Pretentious Pseudo-Intellectual Meter just went to 11 on that last sentence). Michael Jordan immersed himself in a game he didn't invent. He really never did an "original" thing in his career. He was still playing the game James Naismith designed to help his boys at Springfield College pass the time in the cold New England winter. The Beatles played the same chords and scales and rhythms that had been invented long before they were born. They just found slightly new combinations--although I'm sure you can find many songs with matching chord progressions to plenty of Beatles songs, so even that may not be true. But they plugged themselves into things that were already there. I think that's all creativity really is: finding what was already there but was hidden. Geniuses are miners and hunters, not magicians or demi-gods. Darwin "created" a radical new theory but it didn't come out of thin air, it came from what the evidence on the Galapagos Islands told him was the existing truth long before he found it. He didn't impose his fingerprints on anything, he just connected his mind to the existing fingerprints of nature. (Pretentious Meter just blew up).
Maybe people who choose to put in 10,000 hours to become great musicians, chess masters, computer designers, scientists, brain surgeons, etc. are people who want to plug into the world rather than show the world their fingerprints all the time. Maybe we value "uniqueness" far too much. I don't have kids of my own but from what I hear, this has become an epidemic in schools. Every kid is special. Graduation ceremonies are held after kindergarten, elementary school, and middle school as well as high school. I'm all for instilling kids with self-esteem, but I wonder if endlessly teaching "uniqueness" is so good. What happens when those unique kids start taking math and science classes and realize numbers and elements have rules of their own which have no concern with their unique selves? Do they lose interest? And is our culture of uniqueness one reason we aren't so great at math and science? Is it why we have to import so many doctors and engineers? George Bush said illegal immigrants are doing work Americans won't do. (He forgot to add we won't works those jobs for sub-minimum wage). But I wonder if many legal immigrants are doing the (highly skilled) work Americans won't do--because they're just too unique and special to jump through the hoops to do for such work. Then again.....legal immigrants are Americans so I guess it doesn't matter in the end.
To recap..............uh, I'm not sure. I have no idea what I'm talking about. Kids, plug into life, but keep your fingerprints to yourself. Thank you.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Illegal Immigration: The Shocking Truth
My fellow Americans, I come to you today with a grave problem. There's a certain group of folks among us who just didn't seem to get the memo that America is an invite-only party. Unlike you and me, they just don't seem to care about the rule of law. These people came to our great land unannounced and without a single immigration paper amongst them. They didn't come here to work, only to feed off our resources. But about the only thing they seemed good at was spreading disease. And these foreigners barely spoke a word of English--only Spanish. We should have stopped those "banditos" a long time ago while we still had the chance.
But Christopher Columbus is dead. And the remains Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria are nowhere to be found.
Of course our modern illegal immigrants aren't reprising the role of the gold digging conquistadors of old but rather the African slaves of old. Failing to control our borders is just a symptom of failing to enforce our minimum wage laws. Continue allowing corporations to hire under the table illegal aliens for slave wages and illegal immigration will continue.
But who wants a political rant? What I find far more interesting as it pertains to immigration is the fact that America is only what it is today because of the existence of the Atlantic Ocean.
Maybe.
There have been two massive immigration waves in the Americas: the European migration beginning in 1492 and the Asian migration beginning around 11,000 BC. I say Asian because Native Americans were apparently originally from Asia. During the last Ice Age it's believed there was a land bridge along the Bering Strait connecting Siberia to Alaska which they crossed. So they got all the way from Asia to Baton Rouge without even needing to learn how to sail or swim. After the Ice Age ended the ice bridge melted and they were trapped here. They lived in isolation for..........11,000 years?
But why stop there? Let's dive even further back into pre-history and assume scientists are correct in saying all humans originated in Africa, having evolved from apes. Human history is then essentially the story of one group of homebodies staying in Africa, another group of wanderers heading north, turning west, and becoming Europeans/Americans and another group of wayfarers heading north, turning east, and becoming Asians/Native Americans. 1492 marked the final reuniting of these two large band of gypsies which had headed in opposite directions thousands of years earlier. Africa, Asia, and Europe were linked back together. The human family was no longer fragmented. Just as we had all been together in Africa, we were once again together because everyone had finally found America.
But we know what happened. They didn't all gather round the campfire with a peace pipe singing "reunited and it feels so good". It wasn't a tear filled family reunion. The Europeans had an advanced civilization and, more importantly, an immunity to all the diseases they had contracted from those sheep, goats, and cows they had found on their slow western odyssey through the Middle East and Europe. The Asians/Native Americans hadn't had the pleasure of stumbling upon those same disease carrying animals on their ancient eastern journey to America.
But there's something else to consider. The Asians got here much, much, much earlier than the Europeans. And they became geographically isolated from their Asian ancestors. They got here so early that they couldn't import all the advantages of technology and agriculture that civilization brings. Because the Europeans took the more difficult western path to America they had about 10,000 additional years to do their homework by establishing a civilization before taking the final exam in America. They delay itself--caused by the Atlantic Ocean--may have been their real advantage. What if the Native Americans had gotten here around the time of the Christ instead of 11,000 BC? China by that time had an advanced civilization of their own. The Native Americans wouldn't have been "primitive" at all. And even some of the virus spreading livestock had begun to circulate by then so the problem of underdeveloped immune systems might have been nonexistent by that time as well.
The world might be a different place today. If the 1492 culture clash had happened under those circumstances, we might be speaking Chinese rather than English. It was less than 150 years earlier that the Mongols had conquered much of the Middle East and Europe. Their empire was only undone by the Great Plague. Asians were more than worthy opponents--if they had the advantages of civilization to support them.
So history begins to seem like a bit of a fluke the closer you look at it. The early arrivals to America may have eventually suffered for their early arrival while the illegal immigrant truants might have benefited from taking their sweet time. (The motto of the Santa Maria should have been "I don't FEEL tardy"). And all this because the pre-historic Bering Strait ice bridge was easier to cross than the Atlantic Ocean.
But it does beg another question: with all that time on their hands after the Ice Age, why didn't the Native Americans create their own separate, advanced civilization? While not exactly a barren wasteland, the Americas--without the benefit of imports--aren't as rich in resources. (Not including gold, silver, and oil). Crops, livestock, climate--not so hot. No fertile crescent here. And that's how civilizations grow. And, amazingly enough, the Native Americans had no horses. (Just as Italian restaurants had no "Italian" food in 1491 since there wasn't a single tomato in all of Italy). Horses came from Russia/Central Asia. Possibly Native American's ancient ancestors had them but horses probably weren't ideal for crossing big ass icebergs out of Siberia. So Native American armies had an infantry but no cavalry. The conquistadors had both. Guess who won? Because the Christian God was on their side? Or because the accidents of geography were on their side?
But by "advanced civilization" don't we really mean the ability to win battles? Culturally, were the Spaniards and their Dutch and English followers more advanced? The Native Americans were pagans who worshiped the sea, the sky, the air, etc. So unlike the sophisticated, cultured Europeans who worshiped a gold tinted metal buried in the dirt, an invisible God, and a flag. Considering we probably owe our entire American culture to the Atlantic Ocean, not the God of the 12 tribes of Israel, "manifest destiny", or the flag, maybe we should become pagans and worship the ocean too. Instead of pledging allegiance to the flag, we should bring Neptune out of mothballs. I mean since pagan notions are apparently more supported by the scientific and historical evidence, who was more advanced as it turns out? Who was less superstitious?
PS--Further (slightly superficial) evidence of everything coming back around again...... Prince Ferdinand and Queen Isabella commissioned the Spanish fleets which accidentally found America. The number one baby girl's name in America today? Isabella.
But Christopher Columbus is dead. And the remains Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria are nowhere to be found.
Of course our modern illegal immigrants aren't reprising the role of the gold digging conquistadors of old but rather the African slaves of old. Failing to control our borders is just a symptom of failing to enforce our minimum wage laws. Continue allowing corporations to hire under the table illegal aliens for slave wages and illegal immigration will continue.
But who wants a political rant? What I find far more interesting as it pertains to immigration is the fact that America is only what it is today because of the existence of the Atlantic Ocean.
Maybe.
There have been two massive immigration waves in the Americas: the European migration beginning in 1492 and the Asian migration beginning around 11,000 BC. I say Asian because Native Americans were apparently originally from Asia. During the last Ice Age it's believed there was a land bridge along the Bering Strait connecting Siberia to Alaska which they crossed. So they got all the way from Asia to Baton Rouge without even needing to learn how to sail or swim. After the Ice Age ended the ice bridge melted and they were trapped here. They lived in isolation for..........11,000 years?
But why stop there? Let's dive even further back into pre-history and assume scientists are correct in saying all humans originated in Africa, having evolved from apes. Human history is then essentially the story of one group of homebodies staying in Africa, another group of wanderers heading north, turning west, and becoming Europeans/Americans and another group of wayfarers heading north, turning east, and becoming Asians/Native Americans. 1492 marked the final reuniting of these two large band of gypsies which had headed in opposite directions thousands of years earlier. Africa, Asia, and Europe were linked back together. The human family was no longer fragmented. Just as we had all been together in Africa, we were once again together because everyone had finally found America.
But we know what happened. They didn't all gather round the campfire with a peace pipe singing "reunited and it feels so good". It wasn't a tear filled family reunion. The Europeans had an advanced civilization and, more importantly, an immunity to all the diseases they had contracted from those sheep, goats, and cows they had found on their slow western odyssey through the Middle East and Europe. The Asians/Native Americans hadn't had the pleasure of stumbling upon those same disease carrying animals on their ancient eastern journey to America.
But there's something else to consider. The Asians got here much, much, much earlier than the Europeans. And they became geographically isolated from their Asian ancestors. They got here so early that they couldn't import all the advantages of technology and agriculture that civilization brings. Because the Europeans took the more difficult western path to America they had about 10,000 additional years to do their homework by establishing a civilization before taking the final exam in America. They delay itself--caused by the Atlantic Ocean--may have been their real advantage. What if the Native Americans had gotten here around the time of the Christ instead of 11,000 BC? China by that time had an advanced civilization of their own. The Native Americans wouldn't have been "primitive" at all. And even some of the virus spreading livestock had begun to circulate by then so the problem of underdeveloped immune systems might have been nonexistent by that time as well.
The world might be a different place today. If the 1492 culture clash had happened under those circumstances, we might be speaking Chinese rather than English. It was less than 150 years earlier that the Mongols had conquered much of the Middle East and Europe. Their empire was only undone by the Great Plague. Asians were more than worthy opponents--if they had the advantages of civilization to support them.
So history begins to seem like a bit of a fluke the closer you look at it. The early arrivals to America may have eventually suffered for their early arrival while the illegal immigrant truants might have benefited from taking their sweet time. (The motto of the Santa Maria should have been "I don't FEEL tardy"). And all this because the pre-historic Bering Strait ice bridge was easier to cross than the Atlantic Ocean.
But it does beg another question: with all that time on their hands after the Ice Age, why didn't the Native Americans create their own separate, advanced civilization? While not exactly a barren wasteland, the Americas--without the benefit of imports--aren't as rich in resources. (Not including gold, silver, and oil). Crops, livestock, climate--not so hot. No fertile crescent here. And that's how civilizations grow. And, amazingly enough, the Native Americans had no horses. (Just as Italian restaurants had no "Italian" food in 1491 since there wasn't a single tomato in all of Italy). Horses came from Russia/Central Asia. Possibly Native American's ancient ancestors had them but horses probably weren't ideal for crossing big ass icebergs out of Siberia. So Native American armies had an infantry but no cavalry. The conquistadors had both. Guess who won? Because the Christian God was on their side? Or because the accidents of geography were on their side?
But by "advanced civilization" don't we really mean the ability to win battles? Culturally, were the Spaniards and their Dutch and English followers more advanced? The Native Americans were pagans who worshiped the sea, the sky, the air, etc. So unlike the sophisticated, cultured Europeans who worshiped a gold tinted metal buried in the dirt, an invisible God, and a flag. Considering we probably owe our entire American culture to the Atlantic Ocean, not the God of the 12 tribes of Israel, "manifest destiny", or the flag, maybe we should become pagans and worship the ocean too. Instead of pledging allegiance to the flag, we should bring Neptune out of mothballs. I mean since pagan notions are apparently more supported by the scientific and historical evidence, who was more advanced as it turns out? Who was less superstitious?
PS--Further (slightly superficial) evidence of everything coming back around again...... Prince Ferdinand and Queen Isabella commissioned the Spanish fleets which accidentally found America. The number one baby girl's name in America today? Isabella.
Friday, September 3, 2010
The Friend Zone
Well have I really joined that sub-species of mammals known as Internet Bloggers? Say it isn't so.
I just saw an ad on Facebook entitled "Ask Her Three Questions" with the caption, "You'll get her every time. Escape the Friend Zone and get her addicted to you. Click here to learn a "Simple Trick" to read her mind".
I clicked. But I didn't read it.
Mind reading tricks? Wow. It turns out love is even more like Inception than I thought. I must be dreaming! Or is this reality? Where's my totem?
Call me a hopeless romantic but I'm not QUITE cynical and jaded enough to buy into mind reading a way to a girl's heart, but this does raise the age old issue: The Friend Zone conundrum. I don't want to say guys are shallow, but if you took a poll asking single guys worldwide whether they would prefer a money-in-the-bank method to escape the dreaded Friend Zone with a girl of their choice or feed starving children in sub-Saharan Africa, let's just say Bono wouldn't need to worry about finding new material for his speeches at U2 shows. Of course this demonstrates not only many guys' moral bankruptcy but their shortsightedness as well when you consider feeding millions of starving children would be a dynamite way to fly out of the Friend Zone labyrinth faster than Daedalus flew from the minotaur. Eradicating world hunger is the ultimate aphrodisiac.
But what a deadly maze the Friend Zone is! Clearly it's the work of Satan himself. Now I know what you're thinking, "You're a guy so you hate The Friend Zone because you see women as merely sex objects you sexist degenerate dirtbag!". Ladies, ladies, SO not the case. And not all male-female friendships are by definition Friend Zone scenarios. But the FZ is pure evil for both men and women. It's not a relationship--as the guy wants it to be--and it's not a friendship--as the girl wants it to be. What is it? An arrangement? A game? A game of mutual manipulation, false half-promises, and emotional blackmail that only leads to mutual anger, frustration, and bruised egos? Other than that, it's pretty sweet.
Part of the problem lies in the simple fact that men and women are.......well, different. We're not only different anatomically, chromosomally (probably not a word) and hormonally, but we are socialized differently which in turn gives us different sets of priorities and needs when it comes to the opposite sex. For example, here is a conversation that would never take place between two guys:
DUDE: Yo bro, my phone is BLOWING UP. The ladies just can't stop calling me!
BRO: Word. The honeys are on yo jock?
DUDE: Fo real.
BRO: Well, just make sure you wrap it.
DUDE: Um, so I take it you don't mean wrap my gifts of carnations and scented candles?
BRO: Stop playin'. I mean when you hit that.
DUDE: Well, actually I'm not sleeping with any of these ladies.
BRO: Ohhhhhhh. So they've Friend Zo----
DUDE: See I don't look at that way at all. ANY guy could sleep with them. But these girls are getting NO sexual satisfaction from me but they STILL want to hang with me. That shows what an awesome personality I have. It proves how intelligent I am. I feel so special. So.....validated!
BRO: Oh.........kay. You're not gay, right?
DUDE: No! But I'm not a piece of meat! When girls tell me about how their emotionally distant fathers have given them trust issues in relationships and that's why they gravitate towards emotionally unavailable unemployed alcoholic drifters, it's special. Who needs raw animal lust when you have such deep emotional intimacy? It's spiritually uplifting for me.
BRO: Wow! I see what you mean. Just let relationships evolve naturally. Don't let women trap you in The Slut Zone!
Conversely, I'm pretty sure this conversation has never, ever taken place between two female BFF's........
GAYLE: Hey girl? How are things between you and Pete? He seems really sweet.
OPRAH: If I wanted sweet I would watch Love Actually. All Pete wants to do is talk about his feelings! What does us sleeping together have to do with feelings? Just take off your pants and don't speak.
GAYLE: Maybe he sees you as his soul mate.
OPRAH: Soul mate? Right. And Santa Clause and The Tooth Fairy are real. Call me when the spaceship lands.
(On second thought, maybe such conversations do happen between women).
But it's quite simple really, even primordial, if you will. Women are generally physically weaker than men. But we wanted to create a civilization. So we set up a rule to balance things out. This means women CHOOSE to have sex while men are The Chosen Ones. Scoring is an accomplishment for a guy, a victory, an overcoming of the odds, a check mate on the chess board of life. For women? Not so much. There's no overcoming of odds involved. In fact giving it out too freely is seen as shameful. So for a woman it seems the real victory--especially if she is young and attractive--is to NOT be seen as purely a sex object. Hence platonic friendships are victories for women--and crushing defeats for men.
Well, okay. Not ALWAYS. Friendships with women are great if women are a) married, b) engaged, c) in a serious and happy relationship, or d) devastatingly unattractive. There is no confusion in those situations and it's safe. But here is the problem: the women who seem most interested in Friend Zone relationships are the ones who are single or involved in unstable relationships. The guys most willing to gamble on entering the shark infested waters of The Friend Zone are usually single and........single. The woman's life circumstances increase her need for an emotional void to be filled. But this very need confuses the guy. The hapless young single, lonely guy interprets his void filling as something vaguely resembling love or at least the seeds of it. Wishful Thinking--the Cain to The Friend Zone's Abel--rises to the surface. The guy thinks he has a chance.
He has no chance.
And why should he have a chance? Women are often accused of leading the guy on just enough to keep him trapped in The Friend Zone. But guys lead women on in FZ situations by pretending they are happy and content with platonic friendships to validate them. Lies, lies, more lies. If a FZ trapped guy says, "Wow. I can almost see inside your soul right now", he's actually thinking, "Wow. I can almost see inside your blouse right now". Both guy and gal are misleading each other. Not exactly a foundation to build a healthy, happy relationship based on mutual trust and understanding, is it? And forget relationships. Friend Zones aren't friendships. Actual friendships involve two people who ask nothing from each other. They just enjoy each other's company. But quite to the contrary, Friend Zones are always filled with ulterior needs, motives, and hidden agendas on one or both sides. The girl wants validation, the guy wants to go skinny dipping with her after splitting a 12 pack of Corona Extras.
So let's consider a Constitutional Amendment banning Friend Zones. They are more dangerous than The Green Zone in Baghdad. The only way to get out is to never get in!
Of course if you DO try to escape from the FZ as Facebook suggests. I recommend one of two methods. First the Billy Joel method:
Tell her about it
Tell her everything you feel
Give her every reason to accept
That you're for real
(WARNING: this method has a 92% chance of failing if you're not a millionaire rock star piano man).
Or follow the counsel of those sensitive and insightful relationship experts ZZ Top:
I gotta gal she lives on the hill
She won't do it but her sister will
I don't have a future ahead of me as a self-help expert, do I?
I just saw an ad on Facebook entitled "Ask Her Three Questions" with the caption, "You'll get her every time. Escape the Friend Zone and get her addicted to you. Click here to learn a "Simple Trick" to read her mind".
I clicked. But I didn't read it.
Mind reading tricks? Wow. It turns out love is even more like Inception than I thought. I must be dreaming! Or is this reality? Where's my totem?
Call me a hopeless romantic but I'm not QUITE cynical and jaded enough to buy into mind reading a way to a girl's heart, but this does raise the age old issue: The Friend Zone conundrum. I don't want to say guys are shallow, but if you took a poll asking single guys worldwide whether they would prefer a money-in-the-bank method to escape the dreaded Friend Zone with a girl of their choice or feed starving children in sub-Saharan Africa, let's just say Bono wouldn't need to worry about finding new material for his speeches at U2 shows. Of course this demonstrates not only many guys' moral bankruptcy but their shortsightedness as well when you consider feeding millions of starving children would be a dynamite way to fly out of the Friend Zone labyrinth faster than Daedalus flew from the minotaur. Eradicating world hunger is the ultimate aphrodisiac.
But what a deadly maze the Friend Zone is! Clearly it's the work of Satan himself. Now I know what you're thinking, "You're a guy so you hate The Friend Zone because you see women as merely sex objects you sexist degenerate dirtbag!". Ladies, ladies, SO not the case. And not all male-female friendships are by definition Friend Zone scenarios. But the FZ is pure evil for both men and women. It's not a relationship--as the guy wants it to be--and it's not a friendship--as the girl wants it to be. What is it? An arrangement? A game? A game of mutual manipulation, false half-promises, and emotional blackmail that only leads to mutual anger, frustration, and bruised egos? Other than that, it's pretty sweet.
Part of the problem lies in the simple fact that men and women are.......well, different. We're not only different anatomically, chromosomally (probably not a word) and hormonally, but we are socialized differently which in turn gives us different sets of priorities and needs when it comes to the opposite sex. For example, here is a conversation that would never take place between two guys:
DUDE: Yo bro, my phone is BLOWING UP. The ladies just can't stop calling me!
BRO: Word. The honeys are on yo jock?
DUDE: Fo real.
BRO: Well, just make sure you wrap it.
DUDE: Um, so I take it you don't mean wrap my gifts of carnations and scented candles?
BRO: Stop playin'. I mean when you hit that.
DUDE: Well, actually I'm not sleeping with any of these ladies.
BRO: Ohhhhhhh. So they've Friend Zo----
DUDE: See I don't look at that way at all. ANY guy could sleep with them. But these girls are getting NO sexual satisfaction from me but they STILL want to hang with me. That shows what an awesome personality I have. It proves how intelligent I am. I feel so special. So.....validated!
BRO: Oh.........kay. You're not gay, right?
DUDE: No! But I'm not a piece of meat! When girls tell me about how their emotionally distant fathers have given them trust issues in relationships and that's why they gravitate towards emotionally unavailable unemployed alcoholic drifters, it's special. Who needs raw animal lust when you have such deep emotional intimacy? It's spiritually uplifting for me.
BRO: Wow! I see what you mean. Just let relationships evolve naturally. Don't let women trap you in The Slut Zone!
Conversely, I'm pretty sure this conversation has never, ever taken place between two female BFF's........
GAYLE: Hey girl? How are things between you and Pete? He seems really sweet.
OPRAH: If I wanted sweet I would watch Love Actually. All Pete wants to do is talk about his feelings! What does us sleeping together have to do with feelings? Just take off your pants and don't speak.
GAYLE: Maybe he sees you as his soul mate.
OPRAH: Soul mate? Right. And Santa Clause and The Tooth Fairy are real. Call me when the spaceship lands.
(On second thought, maybe such conversations do happen between women).
But it's quite simple really, even primordial, if you will. Women are generally physically weaker than men. But we wanted to create a civilization. So we set up a rule to balance things out. This means women CHOOSE to have sex while men are The Chosen Ones. Scoring is an accomplishment for a guy, a victory, an overcoming of the odds, a check mate on the chess board of life. For women? Not so much. There's no overcoming of odds involved. In fact giving it out too freely is seen as shameful. So for a woman it seems the real victory--especially if she is young and attractive--is to NOT be seen as purely a sex object. Hence platonic friendships are victories for women--and crushing defeats for men.
Well, okay. Not ALWAYS. Friendships with women are great if women are a) married, b) engaged, c) in a serious and happy relationship, or d) devastatingly unattractive. There is no confusion in those situations and it's safe. But here is the problem: the women who seem most interested in Friend Zone relationships are the ones who are single or involved in unstable relationships. The guys most willing to gamble on entering the shark infested waters of The Friend Zone are usually single and........single. The woman's life circumstances increase her need for an emotional void to be filled. But this very need confuses the guy. The hapless young single, lonely guy interprets his void filling as something vaguely resembling love or at least the seeds of it. Wishful Thinking--the Cain to The Friend Zone's Abel--rises to the surface. The guy thinks he has a chance.
He has no chance.
And why should he have a chance? Women are often accused of leading the guy on just enough to keep him trapped in The Friend Zone. But guys lead women on in FZ situations by pretending they are happy and content with platonic friendships to validate them. Lies, lies, more lies. If a FZ trapped guy says, "Wow. I can almost see inside your soul right now", he's actually thinking, "Wow. I can almost see inside your blouse right now". Both guy and gal are misleading each other. Not exactly a foundation to build a healthy, happy relationship based on mutual trust and understanding, is it? And forget relationships. Friend Zones aren't friendships. Actual friendships involve two people who ask nothing from each other. They just enjoy each other's company. But quite to the contrary, Friend Zones are always filled with ulterior needs, motives, and hidden agendas on one or both sides. The girl wants validation, the guy wants to go skinny dipping with her after splitting a 12 pack of Corona Extras.
So let's consider a Constitutional Amendment banning Friend Zones. They are more dangerous than The Green Zone in Baghdad. The only way to get out is to never get in!
Of course if you DO try to escape from the FZ as Facebook suggests. I recommend one of two methods. First the Billy Joel method:
Tell her about it
Tell her everything you feel
Give her every reason to accept
That you're for real
(WARNING: this method has a 92% chance of failing if you're not a millionaire rock star piano man).
Or follow the counsel of those sensitive and insightful relationship experts ZZ Top:
I gotta gal she lives on the hill
She won't do it but her sister will
I don't have a future ahead of me as a self-help expert, do I?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)