April 10, 2008
Don’t let your desi mom read this postHumor
Especially if you are a smart, attractive, single desi woman. Seriously. This isn’t about desi women in particular but you’ll see how this information could be used for evil especially by desi parents. I know some of you forward posts to your parents but don’t do it with this one. You’ve been warned. NSFP=Not Safe for Parents.
Ok, now that I’ve cleared my conscience let’s get to the article at hand shall we? Slate.com recently published, The Eligible-Bachelor Paradox, which makes use of game theory to explain why the best women often end up single and alone if they wait “too long” to get married. We’ll save judgement for the end:
The shortage of appealing men is a century-plus-old commonplace of the society melodrama. The shortage—or—more exactly, the perception of a shortage—becomes evident as you hit your late 20s and more acute as you wander into the 30s. Some men explain their social fortune by believing they’ve become more attractive with age; many women prefer the far likelier explanation that male faults have become easier to overlook.
The problem of the eligible bachelor is one of the great riddles of social life. Shouldn’t there be about as many highly eligible and appealing men as there are attractive, eligible women?…Actually, no—and here’s why. Consider the classic version of the marriage proposal: A woman makes it known that she is open to a proposal, the man proposes, and the woman chooses to say yes or no. The structure of the proposal is not, “I choose you.” It is, “Will you choose me?” A woman chooses to receive the question and chooses again once the question is asked. [Link]
So what have we learned so far? Despite the fact that men usually propose, it is the woman that typically dictates if and when a marriage will occur. In a free and modern society (meaning no forced or pressured marriages) the real power rests with the woman. Let’s go on then:
You can think of this traditional concept of the search for marriage partners as a kind of an auction. In this auction, some women will be more confident of their prospects, others less so.In game-theory terms, you would call the first group “strong bidders” and the second “weak bidders.” Your first thought might be that the “strong bidders”—women who (whether because of looks, social ability, or any other reason) are conventionally deemed more of a catch—would consistently win this kind of auction.
But this is not true. In fact, game theory predicts, and empirical studies of auctions bear out, that auctions will often be won by “weak” bidders, who know that they can be outbid and so bid more aggressively, while the “strong” bidders will hold out for a really great deal. [Link]
So the brilliant and attractive women hold out for someone worthy of their brilliance and attractiveness. Who could blame them? But, meanwhile, the “tier two” women claim their men with their womanly ways, thus removing them from the “game,” leaving the tier one women with fewer candidates that are perhaps, and I quote, “short, socially awkward, underemployed.” Now what about men like me…ahem…cough cough…tier one…cough…men that are still unmarried and ripe for conquest by those aging tier 1 women? I’m guessing we (not me in specific of course, just other tier 1s) might be defective in terms of our megalomania or commitment phobia. James Bond syndrome. So we are essentially out of the game as well (until maybe a much younger tier one or two woman clubs us over the head and aggressively claims us).
Where have all the most appealing men gone? Married young, most of them—and sometimes to women whose most salient characteristic was not their beauty, or passion, or intellect, but their decisiveness. [Link]
The article concludes with a warning. If you want to win this “game” then follow the advice laid out here. Aggressively choose a mate while you are still young. However, you must first believe that the “prize” is worth winning. That is a much more difficult question. A mate isn’t life’s only prize, or even its most important one depending on your view of things.
abhi on April 10, 2008 09:46 PM in Economics, Humor, Musings · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
What? First Amardeep's post about skin color anxieties, and now this. It all seems rather retrograde.
thanks, man. i just got a one-hour lecture from one of my coupled friends yesterday, telling me how i'm not putting myself out there enough (i'm not) and giving me at least 10 different ways to do so, all with the explicit message that my life is empty because i don't have a guy. good times, good times....
perhaps what makes this article most depressing is the fact that one must consider whether or not one is first- or second-tier (and what does being second-tier and still-single mean?)
Don't let it get you down folks. Its all absurd anyways! Remember what Yoda said: "Try not. Do or do not. There is no try." Whatever "tier" you are at is irrelevant. As is your age. When you want to claim your prize claim it. Or else become a prolific blogger and the comments you receive on your posts will fill the emotional void. At least that's what prominent bloggers tell me :)
abhi,
i'm really disappointed that you'd be promoting this conservative social "sciene" which simply perpetuates Stereotypes which reinfore the ideals of the White Male Power Structure.
I've been reading that blog "Stuff White People Like" lately and I realized that I'm pretty white since I like all that stuff :)
lemme present the same data (leftover, high quality women) with a different narrative -
- there are a small number of AlphaMales (CEO's, Quarterbacks, etc.) who literally have 10x the partners of the BetaMales ("normal" guys) (by contrast, the "partners curve" for women has a smaller "spike" at the end of the distribution -- ergo, these guys are pairing up with a wide number of women rather than repeatedly pairing with a particular crew)
- there are a larger number of Women who'd rather join the lottery for a single AlphaMale (e.g. the cheerleading team, the secretarial pool, etc.) or have an affair with him even after he's married
- those women, after the Alpha has paired off find themselves left behind and suddenly appreciating what the nice BetaMales brought to the table but alas, because he isn't a QB or a CEO, they feel like they're settling.
- but many of those BetaMales already coupled with with a nice, normal BetaFemales
#1 entry on list of stuff white people like? That blog "Stuff White People Like". I just don't get it. It is a perfect combination of the broad comedy, mild stabs at humor, and generic inoffensive characterization that is prevalent on the average weeknight sitcom.
"it is the woman that typically dictates if and when a marriage will occur"
I have a single 27 year old friend that would disagree...she's a hot lawyer..she chose yes several times since she was 24...with no bite. When it comes to Desi women they usually can decide if they want to marry the man after a short period of dating, after that they just give the man ultimatums or press for marriage until the man commits. The balance of power is totally in the man's favor.
"But, meanwhile, the “tier two” women claim their men with their womanly ways, thus removing them from the “game,” leaving the tier one women with fewer candidates that are perhaps, and I quote, “short, socially awkward, underemployed.”
Disagree...the cool guys who also go to grad school...dont get married until 30.
"The article concludes with a warning. If you want to win this “game” then follow the advice laid out here. Aggressively choose a mate while you are still young. However, you must first believe that the “prize” is worth winning. That is a much more difficult question. A mate isn’t life’s only prize, or even its most important one depending on your view of things."
Obviously a man wrote this article...and its like the blind leading the blind.
Maybe us men should run dating as a second price auction so that mate selection is strategyproof, and men and discover the true valuations that their bidders place on them. Of course, Vickrey auctions could be gamed by wingmen or cattiness (Section 4, bullet 3), but we already have those problems, don't we?
My mom is a smart, attractive, single desi woman.
Despite the no-parent warning, I can't help but wonder what Yo Dad thinks...
I agree and disagree with Natasha on the 2nd point; the 30 year old (& older) successful guys are somewhat confused, and seem to have commitment phobia. Ofcourse, finally they do get married...choosing most likely the tier-2 women, since they have spent so much time choosing...eventually passing up the tier-1 women of same age group. Again, I am talking about only the desi context:)
With desis, you MUST include parents in the analysis. Personally, based on observation, I think the reason a lot of ABD women are single in their 30s, is because in their 20s they held out for a desi guy to marry...mostly for their parents' sake but also maybe to some extent for themselves...and in that process they let a lot of marriage opportunities with non-desi men go by. And I also think a lot of desi parents were too picky and indecisive when their daughters were younger, and held out for someone they perceived as 'better', in the meantime costing their daughters opportunities with 'lesser' men.
So women who could have been married to a gora or other non-desi many years ago, or even to a desi who at the time didn't appeal to their parents enough, are now single and (assuming they desire marriage and are having a rough time accomplishing that) paying for it. In some cases it IS the parents' fault.
Of course in some cases it is the young woman's fault too, for poor decisions made while younger. And yes this applies to men too...even now I'm constantly at risk for making stupid decisions that have the potential to really mess things up for me. And I'm not even really young anymore. But anyway, overwhelmingly I think there are a lot of desi women struggling to get married who easily could have married someone 10 years ago if they had felt free to do so.
So, I read the paper and am confused. In the paper, the valuations are drawn uniformly from two intervals, with the "strong bidder" having a larger right endpoint than the "weak bidder". The valuations are then revealed to the bidders, and their strategies are examined. The payoff in this case would be determined by subtracting the bid value from the valuation.
How does this translate to the "women choose" marriage game? Shouldn't the valuation actually be the value women place on the guy? And, if anything, shouldn't it be the bids that are drawn from different distributions? (since the "strong bidders" are capable of "bidding" much higher because they have more (social, or whatever) capital?). That is a very different auction than what the paper describes.
What am I missing?
14 · Rahul said
The sex polygon in Slate's editorial staff?
What a tired theme. You'd think the "where have all the good men gone-what's wrong with her" theories would have run out of steam by now, but clearly not. I think the only other subject more conducive to labels and pigeon holes is "of Indians" - by Indians, for Indians. (Very democratic, that.) Wha'evah!.
Amitabh writes: >>In some cases it IS the parents' fault.
It's always the parents' fault (and I don't use the words "always" and "never" casually).
M. Nam
Yoda actually said "Try not. Do, do. Or do not. There is no try."
It's always the parents' fault (and I don't use the words "always" and "never" casually).
M. Nam
Children dont have agency?
I agree with both Natasha and Bongo..I agree that a lot of desi women DO decide they want to get married early on, but have a hard time finding the right type of guy who is willing to commit. And that's why I agree with Bongo in that a lot of desi guys have major commitment phobia. I know of lots of instances where a completely good and strong relationship is ruined exactly because it is good and guys start freaking out bc they are afraid to settle.
I do agree that you should never just settle for what's good or okay, but at the same time if you find something great you shouldn't run from it. Especially with all the crazies out there in the world today.
My theory: Men are happiest partnered with SLIGHTLY inferior women (slightly less intelligent, less powerful, less talented, less successful, less whatever EXCEPT for looks) and women are happiest with slightly superior men (again except for looks). So you have lots of pairings of the top 90% of men with the bottom 90% of women. Who is left over after all these pairings?
The top 10% of women and the bottom 10% of men.
Yes there are plenty of exceptions, and hence hope for all of us.
It has been shown that males, by choosing to do the asking, always get the best wife they possibly could, while females, by choosing to do the answering, get themselves the worst husband they possibly could. If this is not the case, the marriage is not stable, and the couple will break up to find other mates.
Take-home message - always get out there and ask, irrespective of how many Y chromosomes you have. You may run the risk of rejection, but the end result will be the best you could get.
(The stable marriage algorithm is used to match hospitals with interns).
I continue to be of the opinion that the only reason, rather the only good reason, why arranged marriage is still so overwhelmingly popular in India is because it has to be, otherwise a large percentage of Indian men would go through life as spinsters.
Apoligies to all the bright, attractive, intelligent and charming Indian men out there - I know there are alot of you (maybe even in the millions). But one "all India" road trip makes it glaringly obvious that alot of men in India would not be able to attract and woo a woman if left to his own devices in a free (marriage/meat) market of choice.
I don't get that statement. Isn't one reason why so many couples break up because the wife is not satisfied with the inferior quality of her husband?
My ex always complained that I did not respect him. It was true. I saw him as quite immature and beneath me in many respects. For once I would like to meet a man who has had more international experience than me, and who can carry a more interesting conversation than I can. Compete with me for God's sake!
OMG, my dad just emailed me the link to this post! First, I can't believe we both read the same blog! Second, is this his way of giving me "dating" advice and telling me I better hurry up and get married?!!?!? *gulp*
Abhi, this was a very depressing read early in the morning... Next time you blog about something like this, do it late at night so we can fully wallow in our self-pity ;)
23 · Gotta be said.... said
Yep, what with gay marriage still not being common, the only way for a spinster to marry a woman would be if the parents forced it. Now, if the man's fate was to stay a bachelor on the other hand...
ObamaGirl, shouldn't you be out making a Youtube video or something?
You are quite the catch there Gotta be Said, I'm sure almost sure my auntie just sent me on a date with you last summer....
26 · Rahul said
I think she meant this kind of spinster, Rahul, and have I got the man for her!
17 · MoorNam said
Wrong. It's always the British colonialists' fault, duh!
Language is evolutionary. Spinster has been reclaimed and redefined in a way different from it's sexist days.
Otherwise, what would be the alternative male equivalent of "spinster"?
Well that was depressing. Guess I'll just hang my 32 year old, successful, single, female self out to dry...
;-)
31 · Gotta be said.... said
Last I heard, it was 'bachelor.' But maybe language has evolved too fast in the meantime.
33 · portmanteau said
Last I heard, it was 'bachelor.' But maybe language has evolved too fast in the meantime.
The connotation of bachelor and spinster is so typically different and in-line with the double standard between males and females.
When you hear bachelor you think George Clooney. When you hear spinster you think of ??? Can anyone come up with a famous spinster? Of course not, because they are hiding away in their houses, hoarding random items and living with 100 cats. :P
People always feel sorry for spinsters that they could never find someone to marry. But people still believe bachelors, no matter how old, could still get married to some PYT.
Nope. Bachelor has a different connotation, just as bachelorrette has a different connotation than spinster.
One conjures up images of a life of lonely dispair surrounded by cats (cliche, but whatever), while the other conjures up images of fun and freedom, "single and lovin' it" style.
Kind of like in Indian yogic or religious literature when they translate the word "brahmachari" to "bachelor".
Brahmachari celibacy is implied in the word brahmachari. Celibacy is not implied in the word bachelor.
So then, what's the male equivelant of "spinster"?
Aha! Gotta be said, I guessed you were PG right on comment #23, but your comment #35 established it. Welcome back, Pardesi Gori.
Intriguing theory, Nina. I think you might be on to something. But I noticed that you defined 'inferior' as someone less intelligent, powerful, talented and successful. :-)
Nina was oviously being facetious, and this is a tired question, but I am curious:
Do women in general value money over character (kindness, being considerate, etc.) when choosing a mate? Do men value character over material success? Of course, making the simplistic assumption that these traits are mutually exclusive (which they are generally not).
(Have I been watching too many re-runs of Sex and the City? The question sounds a bit too much like SJP's episode set-up hypothesis)
I ask only because I hear of more and more women back in the Des choosing less "successful" men over richer men.
Isn't the takeaway from the article that older single women have far more capital than older single men? So, really, it's the men who should be throwing themselves a pity party :)
And, I'm still hoping somebody will explain how the game theory result extends to the marriage market, as I'd asked in #14.
Some women do and in fact they seek it out. To them money is a turn-on or is what is most important to them. What else would explain unattrictive, older wealthy men often marrying very young, pretty women.
But I have to say that character trumps money any day for me. In fact yesterday when I was taking BART home, a desi guy stopped to help a woman who had a bunch of bags and was having problems getting through the turnstile. He stopped and asked her if she needed help and if he could feed the ticket for because her hands were full. I just thought wow, what a nice guy and it didn't hurt that he was good looking and tall ;)
abhi,
have you considered dating younger women (Satchel Paige never considered anyone over 25) ...thus freeing you from the aging, perhaps....'cough cough' judgemental tier 1s? just a thought :)
34 · puri said
I was still talking about dictionary meaning. And if peeps are talking about reclaiming words, how about using these words as what they strictly mean (ie to indicate marital status), and not in their pejorative sense? Bachelorette is a liberty I won't take with the English language.
One thing kind of related to words and their implications - especially regarding single women.
Once my European friend and I were visiting another friend's family in Maharastra.
The first night we were whisked off to another family's house, sat down, presented with coconuts and other paraphenalia along with being fed and watched.
After some time of sitting, smiling, eating and conversing, we all left.
When we returned with our Maharastrian friends to their home, my European friend asked one of them, "what was all of that about?".
They said it was "kanya puja". She asked what "kanya" meant.
Answer: virgin.
We both looked at each other and smiled.
Then why use bachelor?
How about just single boy or single woman?
35 · Gotta be said... said
brahmachari= celibate student or ascetic
brahmacharya= in the most restricted sense, implies control and sublimation of sex energy through the practice of celibacy
You say that, "[c]elibacy is not implied in the word bachelor." Then, I take it, it is wrong to translate "brahmachari" as "bachelor." In fact, I have rarely seen it translated this way.
PG your stories are becoming crazier by each passing avatar.
Pardesi Gori, don't they discuss these questions in your ISKCON classes?
does anyone else suspect that the flood of such articles lately (e.g. lori gottlieb's article in the atlantic monthly on the argument for settling) has something to with economic instability? when the economy goes to hell, people nest and have babies. conveniently, this pulls women out of the workforce thereby lowering the unemployment rate (measured by the number of people actively looking for work).
portmanteau,
As Rahul correctly ID'd her in 35, it is in your best interest not to engage her lest you want to hear about lingams, yonis and her multi racial exs :)
Single man please. [Unless you're a NAMBLA spokesperson, PG. Which is possible considering your bahrupiya nature, and diversity in life experiences.]
Actually, 'single' is good enough. Which is what people say now. He/She's single.
41 · portmanteau said
How about cougar?
42 · Gotta be said.... said
Yes, because, of course, you both were *technically* virgins. You and your European "friend" were bosom pals, all right.
Just playin', PG. Whatsit between friends, right?
50 · puri said
Like that's not pejorative :)
47 · priya said
VERY good point Priya. Kudos.
On a diff note, NinaP's point about the bottom 10% of "leftover" men brings to mind a semi-classic article -
Hi, I'm new and delurking for the first time. I'm posting this link for informational purposes only, in the hopes of making folks feel a bit better -- there's a lot of conflicting stuff out there on this topic:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/52295/page/1
By way of background, I'm a 40-year-old married ABD (mom's Punjabi, dad's from UP, my husband's a half Indian/half German 41-year-old AB partial-D). We've got a 3rd gen, 7-year-old AB mostly-D. And our extended family is an ethnic mix on both sides. I'm guessing I'm a bit older than most of the folks posting here? Anyway, I don't recall all this marriage pressure on ABD folks my age. There were so few of us and there was so much incentive to assimilate.
This hardly counts as a flood, especially in the context of the steady stream of such articles. Like Caitlin Flanagan who has made an entire career of writing articles like these in the late 90s through mid 2000s when the economy was doing quite well, that talk show lady Laura something-or-the-other who used to go on an on in the late 90s and early 2000s about how a woman's job is to serve a man based on Southern Baptist church teachings, and all of these also followed with the mandatory uproar. So, really, the case for this based on the downturn is tenuous at best.
I am not sure how the statistics disprove this. If 90% of the jobs went to men, these statistics would still be true. As for the most dangerous jobs, maybe they have some correlation to physical labor? Which is why men are disproportionately employed in these jobs? Not because society discriminates against men and puts them in those jobs?
(Btw, I think the link to "semi-classic article" is broken, can you fix it? Thanks!)
47 · priya said
Interesting point Priya. However, I think a lot more people are anticipating the cost of having children much more than previously. In fact I read an article recently and I can't remember where (sorry) about these days it's a luxury to have more than one or two children. Basically it said only weathly people are having more than two children because they can afford to.
And, of course, Phyllis Schafly who has made a career out of asking other women not to have one, over the last 30 or so years! Through good times and bad.
I'm an old fogey and no good at HTML. Can anyone help?
And it's not the "classic" article. It's the follow-up from 20 years later, when Newsweek found that almost all the women that they profiled back in 1987 as having somehow "missed" their chance to get married, ended up getting married and having kids in their late 30s and early 40s. Oh yeah, and they also found that the more education a woman has, the better her odds are of getting married. So, depending on your point of view, there's an article out there that will back you up.
I was referring to Vinod's link to a semi-classic article in his comment #53. The link goes to something about exercise and old age, which I assume is not what he intended.
No, love. We smiled because of the (sweet and charming) irony of our hosts assumptions.
There was recently an article in a local paper here advocating "settling". The woman was a single mom by choice. She couldn't find the man of her dreams but she wanted a child so she had one and figured she meet Mr. Right a few years down the line. She didn't. Now she's pissed at all her married friends who complain about their husbands, offering to take them in when their wives leave them. Her argument is that marriage should be looked at like a small, locally run, non-profit and that if women don't want to be alone in old age with no one to look after them, they better settle for "ok" and forget about firecrackers going off.
Very desi approach I thought.
However, I thought it was a bit too comprimising. Why can't you have fireworks and a non-profit?
heh... my bad... fixed the link in the comment.
But! But PG! You've told us in the past that ve indians think of all you vite vimmen as sluts who sleep around and that is vy ve marry only indian vimmen. vy vere these hosts so confused about this stereotype that you've told us all indians hold?
62 · Rahul fanning himself in shock said
Rahul - you are cracking me up! Thanks for the laugh!
Well, this is just depressing. I guess this reaffirms my fear that I'll be a spinster
Well, this is just depressing. I guess this reaffirms my fear that I'll be a spinster
Make that "bachelorette" or "single woman enjoying life to the hilt!"
60 · Gotta be said... said
Personally, I provide the fireworks and my partners provide the profit.
And as for the kanya puja bit, where I come from, kanyas are sometimes required to give blessings before the start of a particular ceremonies, such as the thread ceremony for Hindu males. So a cousin of mine was getting married recently, and I was chosen for as the kanya for his thread ceremony and his pre-wedding puja (because I am a young, unmarried woman). Now, I know for a fact, that some in the room knew/suspected that I wasn't really a 'kanya.' Believe me, many desis can see through your shenanigans, dear PG; they just let things pass, because it doesn't make a big difference. Acquire from such people a generosity of spirit, and refrain from assaulting us with your BS agenda.
I did blog it late night. Check the time :)
Being alone does not translate into "being lonely".
I still say it's better to be single and happy, having the freedom to meet and date several people if you wish, than to be stuck with one person in a miserable, monogamous relationship.
Let's face it. Divorce was invented for very good reasons and in today's western world, most married people end up divorced anyway. So what's all of a sudden so attractive about getting hitched these days?
24 · Gotta be said.... said
You won't believe it, PG, but I quite enjoy it when my partner is beneath me. You ought to try it sometime too.
67 · Abhi said
Oops! I just assumed you did it this morning because I read it this morning.
Well instead of lurking on SM last night I was watching bad reality TV. Not sure which behavior leads more to my single status ;)
Well, Neisha, I'm forty as well and these "where are all the good men and why are there so many great single women?" stories have been published for my entire adult life :) This is nothing new.
I agree there was more, if not pressure, incentive and ease in 'assimilation' for our age cohort, but, I have to say, I saw lots of pressure to marry around me growing up, and it wasn't all just the desis.
*Some people are less picky and want to be married more. QED. Everyone I know who is single and whines about it has someone in the past the turned their nose up at, that later, upon reflection, they decided would have been pretty good marriage material. Grass. Greener....
Chill.
There was no "shenanigan" for these peeps to "see through". They didn't even know us. We were told by our host family to quickly bathe and dress nicely, they were taking us out.
Anyway, whatever, it was an enjoyable evening. Whether or not we were kanyas is none of nobody's bidniz, but we thought the assumption was cute.
72 · Gotta be said.... said
I was talking about what you do on Sepia. Not about your debauched (or otherwise) lifestyle in general.
21 · Nina P said
What a pointless exercise it is to rank yourself against your potential partner. What baffles me about these and "alpha-male" theories is there's so little talk of love or even compatibility.
Am I the only romantic left in the world? :)
55 · Rahul said
It's not that these articles are new, it's where they are. Sure the Southern Baptists and conservative Dr. Laura have been telling women to submit to the patriarchy, but Slate? The Atlantic Monthy? This is unusual.
Sorry, Priya, I disagree that this is unusual. You can see these articles with regularity in places like the New York Times for the past 20 to 30 years, pretty much as soon as women started working outside the home with regularity and delaying marriage. Like I said in my post above, I've read these sorts of stories every year with regularity in a wide variety of publications, right/left and high/low.
74 · Suchi said
Yes.
Caitlin Flanagan publishes in top-notch mags, and even the NY Times does these articles on the opt-out revolution, there was one a couple of years ago which built entire trends based on a few anecdotes.
Fact remains that the healthiest time to give birth is in your 20's. So maybe that's why.
I just can't figure out why anyone would want to give birth anymore and bring another soul into this deteriorating world. Not to mention that kids today are little disrespectful ***holes.
66 · portmanteau said
Now that you are in America, maybe they just settle for Kanya West.
I agree. I do much much more than rank myself against my potential partner. If you know what I mean.
Oh, rank. I thought it was rankle. No wonder I'm not getting laid - I'd better change my dating strategy.
Bah!! The whole premise of this thread is deeply is flawed!
LOL! Women are the choosers, blah blah. As a guy, that hasn't been my experience at all nor the experience of my friends.
Let's NOT go on that because that notion because it's false and is just an illusion! Man dates Woman for period of time, Woman offers Man "marry me or else" ultimatum, Man dumps needy Woman is by far the more common scenario I've seen.
And I swear, only once in my entire life have I've even heard of a woman saying no to a marriage proposal. I'm talking about in the States under the pretense of "free" marriage, not Desi-style arranged marriage. This was in college, some I knew girl was offered a ring and marriage proposal straight out of nowhere by some guy who clearly had mental problems.
Socially competent guys who have a sense of self-worth are the choosers, especially guys in their 30's. Believe me, I'm a short, bald, thoroughly obnoxious man :P And I can be and am choosy! Why shouldn't I be choosy??
And SOOO MUCH has to do with upbringing. Having endured growing up in a household of unhappily married parents and a culture of forced marriage under dubious circumstance. I just have this unshakeable mental connection with marriage, physical and mental stagnation, and misery (even though, yes, I know, there are happily married couples out there).
Oh, btw, yes, I'm ABCD. Before anyone jumps on me, no, I don't think arranged marriage is an evil or backwards institution or the Western dating isn't without its very severe flaws. American marriages only last about 7 years on average. And Indian views on relationships, love, and marriage is so much more pragmatic in so many ways. I'm just talking about my personal background and life experience here ...
OK I find this hard to believe that in America, a short, bald and thoroughly obnoxious (in his own words) desi man can be choosy.
Choosy amongst whom and how many kids do they have?
VVG @ 11: Abhi is a big boy now. What he does after sunset (or for that matter during day time) is his own "Thang". My two cents on this: We all are basically "animals' dressed in nice clothes. The basic instinct is hard wired and will take over all your social etiquette and mores in a split second. In India there is a saying which translate something like this: Marriage is like Iron Channa, sooner or later one takes a bite at it, and some like it, some not". The age factor begins irrelevant after certain prime age. Speaking about age, Neisha don't worry if you are over 40.
Your's truly was born two days after the "D-Day. Go figure. By the way Abhi, you can find something better to do than ruin someone's morning ! I am just saying. Drive safe.
I'll
kickspank your ass.Hehe, ok, granted, I'm not going after celebrities and supermodels. Do you want specifics? I'm talking about petit Latina and Asian women from mid 20's to early 30's with a college education and no kids. Believe it! A short, bald, intelligent, funny, sociable, successful, outgoing, fun-loving, active, physically fit, positive-minded desi man can and will have choices. BELIEVE IT!
But since you called me out, I did lie about one thing. I'm not really obnoxious. I'm actually a pretty nice guy when not responding to blogs I vehemently disagree with :)
He did! And that still did not save us. We were doomed from the get-go as we were culturally irrelevent to one another.
24 · Gotta be said....
Competing with each other versus complimenting each other....
guess which one wins?
I guess I have the opposite problem. For some reason, even though I'm an "older woman", I tend to attract young guys with good looks but no brains. Or some brains but major issues.
Theory of everything in relationships:
Casual relationships/sex: Men want it more than women -> Women have the power
Marriage: Women want it more than men -> Men have the power
Men trade marriage for sex and women trade sex for marriage.
All other theories are derivations and corollaries of this unified theory.
One doesn't need to be married to have sex.
Theory debunked.
Also, remember that it is women waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than men who gripe about not being satisfied in bed to their friends. It is relatively easy for men to get off. Not so for women, and it is a rare man who is patient and skilled enough to be "super" in bed. Most are just "eh, so-so", at best.
Sex is very, very, very important to us. But we know that quality is hard to come by so we settle with ordinary lovin'. Most women will agree with me on this.
Harsh but true.
Evolution truly played a cruel joke on the female anatomy! There is no reason why the clit should be so far way from the action. Can't blame us for that, we try but we ain't magicians.
7 letters.
O
R
A
L
S
E
X
what a concept, huh?
boring
For you or for her.
Hint; if she finds your performance of oral sex boring, she won't be calling you for too much longer.
And also, as far as intercourse;
2 syllables
g
spot
PG, the 20s desiguy persona you've created clearly epitomizes the types that you get. Why don't the two of your personalities go off and have a private discussion, since he seems fully able to compete with you?
And SM Intern, can you do something about these comments?
Again, I've not created any male persona. That's a figment of your imagination. The intern can check the IPs. I guarantee I would never write anything like "boring" about oral sex.
Oh geez, this thread is too much fun!
Sexual intercourse at reasonably consistent intervals within the confines of marriage is an implicit assumption and is the norm. Outside of marriage is not. In Indian culture, sexual intercourse outside of marriage is not acceptable. Even in more conservative parts of the United States, it's not acceptable. Theory has merit and stands.
Phhht! No argument there. Every other talk show host and comedian has some bit on this fact. Nature's cruel joke ...
But maybe Rahuluji, you are the one who creates personas to counter me and then claim it's me to get me banned.
Clever.
That's the kind of "chalaktva" that can only come from you know where.
I thought we were talking about American relationship trends.
PG, maybe, that is why you and I are never meant to be. Tragic. And here I was, dreaming of idyllic moonlit nights in the cool gardens of Vrindavan where I tantalize you with freshly plucked feathers from the peacocks fluttering around the ISKCON campus.
It's not my imagination, PG, just the Maya you enmesh our threads in. As for IPs, your ability to muster up legions of unsuspecting addresses to spread your bounty has been well established.
Did you even read my posts?? Are you aware of where you are posting?? I was very clearly talking about BOTH Indian and American relationship trends. Wow, you've got some excellent trolling skills there! You totally got me and everyone! :)
I'm assuming Rahul's got PG spotting (or swatting?) on his resume. I'm sure its a much sought after skill.
Hey MD. Good to see another ABD born in the 60s. There aren't many of us out there! Oh, I agree that these articles have been around forever. That's why I made a feeble attempt to post Newsweek's 2007 debunk of their famous 1987 article in which they said that a college educated woman has a better change of being killed by a terrorist than getting married after age 35 (something they wouldn't dare to say now). When they went back and interviewed the same 30-something women from 1987, guess what, most of them were married and several had given birth since 1987.
I was actually making two points, one was that there is lots of contradictory stuff out there on this topic. Fear-mongering to successful professional women sells magazines, apparently. The other point was that there wasn't so much pressure from desi parents back then. All the 60s born ABDs that I know personally are either single (and getting no pressure about it) or married to non-desis. I'm married to a half-desi and I come the closest to the "auntie ideal." Not sure what happened in the interim. Maybe there are just more aunties around these days? ;-)
91 · 20sdesiguy said
Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus ?
Btw if both male & female can have sex with whomever they are attracted to to, then I wonder what is the purpose of marriage other than procreation, non-sexual activity partners during youth and companionship in old age ?
In that sense society should allow sex with mutually consenting partners and then the incentive for marriage is reduced to only for the real serious guys & gals which probably translates to marriage at older age for both sexes.
Hey Neisha! Thanks for responding. Funny, I have had the opposite experience. Everyone (even the non-desis) were very pushy about the marriage thing when I was in my twenties and early thirties, but are more laid back now. Also, I grew up in a small midwestern town so everyone married young.
That's really interesting, MD! I grew up in suburban Chicago and then lived in East and West coast cities from college onward. So, I didn't see that kind of pressure. Growing up there were two kinds of desi parents, the supposedly "cool" kind like mine, who assimilated completely (we're talking late nights at the disco -- it being the 70s and all). And the kind who could be fooled into thinking that their daughters were at a pooja when they were really making big hair and changing into large taffeta dresses enroute to the prom (it being the 80s by that time). Both kinds of parents were so busy struggling to find their own way culturally in the US, that they pretty much left us to our own devices socially. I'm sensing that desi parents, like other Baby Boomer parents these days, are a bit more socially aware and involved with their kids than parents of teens were back in the 70s and 80s.
91 · 20sdesiguy said
Casual relationships/sex: Men want it more than women -> Women have the power
Marriage: Women want it more than men -> Men have the power
Men trade marriage for sex and women trade sex for marriage.
All other theories are derivations and corollaries of this unified theory.
I don't accept your generalizations regarding which gender wants xyz more than another gender (and there's more than just two genders, you know), but yeah, whoever wants/needs "it" (meaning anything) less is going to have more power at the negotiating table than the party that wants "it" more. Also, from my understanding, sex ends with marriage. And marriage is an economic institution--it has more to do with building property and passing it on to legitimate heirs than relatively modern concepts of romance and love. The "practical" desi conception of marriage is much more honest about this fundamental truth than the contemporary western Hallmark(tm) mirage.
Too true, to true ... I couldn't have said it better myself. I've noticed Jewish culture also seems highly cognizant of this basic truism.
Problem is that 1st generation ABD's are often asked to adhere to this Desi ideal by our parents, while at the same time having the western fairy-tale ideal rammed down our throat day-and-night (which even a lot of Caucasian Americans grow disillusioned with), while at the same time are forced to find their own way socially and culturally (as Neisha pointed out).
My parents most definitely weren't "cool" or the slightest bit socially aware. I love'em, God bless'em, but they proved completely and thoroughly incompetent in helping us find our way socially and culturally. They unfortunately proved to be a hindrance in this regard. It's like we had to make one society happy by day and another completely incompatible society happy by night. And we were supposed to trust them to select a suitable lifelong spouse!?! Not gonna happen, hence going along with Western socializing and dating practices. My sister thought she could do better on her own, so do I, it's as simple as that really.
Yes! :P Well, ok, no, not really ...
Is harbajan singh a spinster?