Thursday 1 August 2013

Auntie Seraphic & the Bachelors

Thank you very much to the seven eavesdroppers who chimed in to discuss the so-called "Confirmed Bachelor."  I find it intensely significant that none of you said, "Maybe he's gay." I know that straight Single Catholic guys hate the idea of women looking at your perhaps lonely and frustrating lives and thinking, "Maybe he's gay." And no doubt devout Catholic men who do have gay inclinations but are determined to identify themselves primarily with Christ, not their sexuality, hate this idea too.

All I can say about that is, "I'm sorry. Canadian, American and British mainstream culture is currently completely obsessed with both homosexuality and women's sexual attractiveness, and this affects ordinary women in weird ways. The thought 'Maybe he's gay' makes us feel better--and maybe even a tad superior--when we are hurting because a guy we like is completely indifferent to us."

Now that I have gotten that over with, I will observe that there are two issues going on here. The first is "Why are there devout Catholic men who neither marry nor become male religious nor become priests?" That is the primary issue.

The second issue is, "Is unconsecrated Single life, which we are ALL born into and which almost all  of us abandon, a vocation?" That is the secondary issue, and we can talk about it TOMORROW. I don't want to talk about the extremely contemporary and non-traditional expansion of the notion of vocation today, so please don't leave comments about it. Write them down on a piece of paper, and post them on tomorrow's post. Today is all about the menfolk.

To recap:

I. N. W. Thomas left three suggestions: 1. the confirmed bachelor is living according to private vows 2. he hasn't felt a call to either priesthood or marriage to a specific woman, and is concentrating on his work and hobbies  3. he's secretly selfish or has super-private sexual arrangements.

II. Michael suggested that many confirmed bachelors are just inept at courtship. This includes 40-somethings ignoring all women over 35, or chasing the  kind of women least likely to be interested in them. He thinks married men might be able to give Single guys advice.

III. Some Guy in the USA left three suggestions: 1. the confirmed bachelor could be asexual 2. he might celibacy a small price to pay for living a quiet, interesting life on his own terms 3. he has given up hope after a lifetime of failing to find a spouse.

IV. Hip2BSquare observes that there are many service professions, like the military and medicine, that make a family life difficult. He points out that the Confirmed Bachelor may be living a life of service and self-sacrifice through his career and on behalf of his extended family.  

V. Pomofo brings up the modern nightmare of what-if-she-takes-me-to-the-cleaners-? He also suggests all the good ones are taken and there are no good ones left. He observes that he is an introvert and hates small talk. He calls, in a metaphorical way, women he approaches "the enemy."

VI. Ordinary Joe also sees himself as an introvert and social chit-chat as a hurdle.

VII. Eavesdropper #11 suggests that many so-called Confirmed Bachelors really do want to marry, but they just don't talk about it, at least not when or where women are around. He also points out that women can't tell if a guy has been shot down again and again because many men don't want to talk about this either. He thinks the idea that some men just like to stay Single so they can smoke cigars and quaff whisky in peace is a myth.

I respond:

First, I'm delighted by the turnout and the candid responses. N.W. Thomas set a great tone, I think. Michael highlights the very real problem contemporary men have in courting women and, indeed, in remaining rooted in reality.

Please, men over 40, please stop ignoring single women your own age. Women your own age are the women most likely to be interested in you. If you are super-interested in having kids, you can foster or adopt. Sorry if you can never have the whole enchilada; neither can I. But if it's a question of a loving spouse or nothing...

Another thought that Michael brought to mind is this excellent men's blog.

Some Guy in the USA reminds me that some women can be really annoying and hard to deal with. There's a wide spectrum between being a doormat and a real rhymes-with-itch; we need to find our place in it. Although I myself am not what you would call sweet or easy-going, I don't ask men about their feelings and I don't nag. I hate nagging. If the trash bag is actually festering, I can darn well take it out myself.

I absolutely love what Hip2BSquare said. So, so true. More on that tomorrow.

Pomofo's comment reminds me of a guy I broke up with in part because he would look at me with big "What-if-she-takes-me-to-the-cleaners?" eyes.  I know there are women like that, and I know the alimony system rewards women like that, but I have never been a woman like that, and I felt insulted that he could think I might be. As a trad women whose career blew up anyway, I like to feel taken care of. But I have never been a gold-digger and I seriously resented that any guy who knew me would think I could be.

The fact is that asking a woman for a coffee is not the same thing as handing her the keys to your financial future. Any man has a year--a whole year--to determine if any woman he is dating is the kind of women who would take even the ice cube trays; the kind of woman who, having dignity, would take only her stuff, or half the stuff they accumulated together; or the kind of woman who would never leave him no matter what stupid thing he or she did.

After a year, he owes it to the woman to pop the question or break up, so as not to waste her youth. (Youth is to a woman what money is to a man, incidentally, and we're scared men will use ours all up and then kick us to the curb. No-fault divorce cuts both ways.) Acrimonious divorce is not an accident. It is not like a meteorite hitting your house. You can prevent it, and not just by avoiding all contact with women.

Meanwhile, although I personally dislike them, there are Catholic dating websites. There are lots of great Single Catholic women; maybe just not in Pomofo's parish. (Or they're in his parish, but he hasn't noticed them yet.) There are at least two pretty, good and personable Single Catholic women under 40 in my parish; no Single Catholic man between 35 and 50 in my parish better complain "there are no women" in front of me.

I must go, so I'll comment on the other guys' responses later today. But ladies are now invited to respond in the combox.

Update: I'm back, and I'll begin with Pomofo's "enemy" metaphor because, to be quite frank, women are so scared of being seen as "the enemy" or "a citadel to be conquered" that the realization that a man thinks of us this way will send us screaming to the hills.

It would be way more effective to approach women as a fisherman approaches fish, or a wildlife photographer approaches wildlife: with a lot of thought about what fish/wildlife are like, and what attracts and repels them, and an enjoyment of just being in the great outdoors.  Whereas a soldier presumably hates the enemy or is willing to do anything to get inside the citadel, the fisherman and the photographer does not hate the fish or the wildlife. He respects the fish or the wildlife and understands that they are not at war with him.

He and Ordinary Joe are both introverted, hate small talk and are shy. That's unfortunate [Update: i.e. in terms of approaching women], and probably puts them in the same boat as the girl who is really plain. Men love women who are great to look at, and women love men who are great to talk to. The plain girl does what she can to make herself less plain; she corrects her posture, she dresses as well as she can, she wears make-up, she plays up her most striking features, she goes out of her way to become Miss Personality. What can introverted guys do? That's a good question, and I'll have to think about it. They could start by sitting next to chatterboxes. Chatterboxes don't care if you speak or not. They just want to chatter.

Eavesdropper #11 has expanded this theme of many-men-aren't-great-talkers. And this leads me to take tentative steps towards what to me is usually an unthinkable (and a pointless) idea, and it is that women may need to be more encouraging to church-going Christian men they like who are still single at the age of 35 or over.

I said 35 or over.  And I also said Christian; don't chase secular men  or any other kind who expect to, can and will have casual flings. As we have seen above, there can be all kinds of selfish or deeply private reasons why a Christian man is still single at 35+. However, the testimony of our seven eavesdroppers suggests that sometimes it is simply because they lack the necessary social skills and/or have just given up. A guy like that may be relieved and grateful--not gun-shy or conceited--when a woman goes out of her way to invite him into her life. (Start with party invites, however.)  

The only kind of socially awkward 35+ I would be interested in, were I still single, would be the kind who would think, "Wow! Even though I always thought of myself as a dry old stick, this beam of sunshine has bounced into my life", not the kind who would think, "But I want a woman who looks like Jessica Rabbit and will give me two babies."

But don't be dumb about this. Chances are a 35+ guy who looks like a male model and could charm the birds from the trees has had ample opportunity to court women and knows perfectly well women are into him.

40 comments:

29inAus said...

Thanks Auntie (and the Eavesdroppers).

I just want to share that as a woman who had her heart bruised by someone who could easily, from the outside, look like a "confirmed Bachelor" type, I don't think there IS a type. Yesterday's comments were a good reminder of the complexities of the human heart. Thank you all for your honesty. Really, there are many reasons (and a bit or a lot of brokenness, depending on the individual) behind people staying single into their late thirties and beyond. (Not to mention the need for co-operation from another person to bring an end to singleness.) I think it is so helpful to consider the possible reasons (most particularly for ourselves, so that we can be honest about where we're at, and to change), but at the end of the day, not everyone fits into a "box". (I know that's not what anyone was trying to do, I just felt that this was important to highlight.) So, I don't have a simple response, as a woman (and even as a jilted woman) to this.

Also, it's ironic that that one Eavesdropper cited the paucity of available Catholic women - because as an available Catholic woman I really wonder where the available men are! There seems to be a serious dearth in Catholic men over 25 and younger than 40 in this particular country (Australia).

God bless all :)

sciencegirl said...

I think it could be easy to end up single in the late 30s or 40s. Say a good Catholic man dates a few women in his 20s, each for a couple of years, with a gap in between. However, they end up deciding to not marry. In the meantime, he finds a permanent job and settles down, having finished schooling. He is in a location with few single, Catholic women near his age. These few women do not share an attraction or significant romantic interest with him. His options are to spend time in his evenings and weekends driving to the city for social events in the hopes of meeting other women, or to use the costly Catholic dating websites. In either case, a similar problem arises: few women sharing his age, interests, or chemistry. He would prefer to be married, but, in the meantime, is building a good Christian life for himself. He spends more time visiting his family than going on blind dates. In the meantime, he realizes he is happy as he is. Should circumstances change -- should he become smitten with someone -- he would ask her out with marriage as a possibility in the distant future. In any given week, he chooses to spend his hours off work on those who already love him rather than on those who might love him someday. One only has so many Saturday nights, after all.

His friends and family marry and have children. He witnesses their joys, stresses, and sorrows. He sometimes wishes he had a spouse and children, too, but after a crazy exhausting Sunday afternoon playing with his 10 nephews, he is happy to go home to a quiet place.

In my opinion, it is not the primary responsibility of an unmarried man to find a wife. Men like the above may find a wife, eventually, in their 50s or 60s, when some of the women who married early are widowed. Or they may continue to lead good Christian lives in the absence of a spouse.

I sympathize. When not dating anyone, I would sometimes wish I were. Then I would ask myself, "Do I know any men I wish would ask me out?" The answer -- save for perhaps one or two men -- was generally "No." No doubt men have the same feelings toward the women in their lives, and I think that is fine.

Katy said...

I'd like to speak to the shy introverts for whom small talk is just too much of a hurdle. First, there are differences between women and men that, for better or worse, mean that women are attracted to risk-takers and sacrificers. Perhaps this is primal/biological/darwinian and is a vestige of when women needed a man who could kill things in order to know she her kids would a) eat and b) not be killed. I don't know, but I can't change it (just like, men, you can't change that many of you prefer Jessica Rabbit). So these primal qualities are what we speak of in the modern context as “manly.” Now, good NCGs know better than to define manliness only in terms of muscular beefiness and jaw-lines. Instead, I think most of us are smart enough to look for manly qualities in other ways, such as a) willing to take risks, including the risk of rejection, b) willing to sacrifice in order to get what he wants or on behalf of what he loves, including the sacrifice of enduring the small-talk phase of a relationship.

Therefore, we interpret a man who is not willing to take risks or to sacrifice in order to obtain a wife as either a) not interested in obtaining a wife very much, and therefore, not serious enough for us to take seriously – so we reject this type in advance of ending up losing our youth in a relationship with a commitment-phobe who doesn’t really want a wife, or b) not manly enough to be a good husband if he were to miraculously obtain one without having to overcome the hurdles imposed by dating rituals. We reject this type of man because we know that marriage, along with its benefits, is also risk (of being hurt or misunderstood) and sacrifice on steroids, so anyone who can’t endure the minimum risk and sacrifice of the dating rituals isn’t cut out for marriage. That judgment about you may be wrong!

Please hear me - I don't mean to say that if you have these feelings, introverts, that you are not husband material and so you are right to give up. What I'm saying is that don't let our culture of laziness and risk aversion trick you into telling yourself that it's ok to give up and not power through. Power through! If you want to be married, then don't worry that it's scary and sacrificial! I believe in your manliness and I know that the right woman will too. And those risks and sacrifices change as the relationship progresses, but new risks and new sacrifices (sometimes bigger) are taken on, and so these initial ones are great practice. God bless you and I will pray for you all!

LaLaLand said...

Oh my. Hmmm, perhaps I should wait to post this comment because I am shaking with rage.... I think I will write it out anyway, but I promise to abstain from four letter words. ;-)

Seraphic, I ALWAYS enjoy reading what you have to say, and you almost always manage to say even not-so-nice things in a funny, kindly way.
However.
I am HORRIFIED and extremely offended (and, quite frankly, I feel pathetic and put-down) that you say it is "unfortunate" to be an introvert.
I happen to be an introverted twenty-something young woman, and I live in a country (US) where it is practically a sin to be an introvert. I really did not think you would buy into this.
Being an introvert does NOT mean being socially awkward, or unable to hold a conversation, and it ESPECIALLY is not comparable to being a poor "plain" Jane. Essentially, you are saying (as does my entire culture) that who I am is not good enough - what I intrinsically am as a person with a God-given personality is second best and must be changed into the MOST desirable thing: a glitzy, gregarious, go-getter extrovert.

I really hope this comment tugs your brain in a different direction, and I hope it helps you to think about how nasty a concept it is that introverts are "second best."

ON THE FLIP SIDE: I believe the two men are using their "introversion" as an excuse. Yes, introverts LOVE to talk about deep things - but for crying out loud, we are completely capable of discussing the latest superhero movie. (Granted, I personally tend to talk about the deeper themes, the morality of a demi-god, etc., etc.). But you get the point.
Introversion is not an excuse to be socially inept or socially absent. In fact, it is a strength. Introverts are fantastic listeners (name one woman who doesn't want a man who's a good listener), and have very deep thoughts which, contrary to popular belief, they LOVE to share with others. We just don't want to talk about the weather. That's all.

Men, man up. You cannot make excuses for yourself. You must be yourself and be true to who you are (whether or not Seraphic thinks you're second best or a plain Jane) but you need to be a liiiiittle outside your comfort zone, too. When an extrovert pushes himself to listen and stay serene when he wants to belt out his opinion or bounce off the walls, he is pushing himself outside his comfort zone. The introvert, likewise, must, without denying who he is, step outside the comfort zone a little. Each temperament has something to offer, and each can learn things from the other.

Peace.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Aunty, for pointing out us single Catholic guys (almost always) aren't gay ;) You summed that up nicely.

I like the comments above from 29inAus and sciencegirl - numbers play a part here. I know only one single Catholic woman within a decade of my age, and I'm in the biggest Catholic parish in my (small) country. Can't ask you out if we can't see you!

That said, the Church teaches Catholics should aim for a Catholic spouse (while not ruling out others), but does nothing to support Catholic marriage. No teachings, useless pre-marriage courses, not even reminders to parents to encourage marriage (and religious life) among their children - it is surprising how many 'good' Catholics act horrified if a young Catholic even mentions marriage (focus on your education, getting a good job, your OE/gap year, buying a house, etc).

And I only know 1 Catholic couple my age who stayed Catholic and married as Catholics. All the rest in my parish seem to have left the Church in late teens/early twenties, dated secularly, then come back to the Church to get married or when their kids need a Catholic school. That creates a strong impression that you are better off looking for a date/spouse outside the Church, which usually leads young Catholics away from the faith.

And that all said, most single Catholic guys I know have been turned down a lot in their younger years, and got tired of going out just to get humiliating rejections, so they don't go out so much. Others just aren't in a financial position to date/marry.

Wow. The Church should seriously have a better conversation about these issues. But when I try to talk to our priests about this kinda stuff, I get no response or follow up.

Sorry this is so grim sounding, but that really is the state of it in my neck of the woods. And that really hurts if we feel called to marriage... lucky we have an eternity of joy in Heaven to look forward to, eh? :)

Southern Bloke.

Are Confirmed Bachelors Allowed said...

Just to add a bit of context, I'm the person who originally asked Auntie the question; I was curious about both 1) men-in-general as confirmed bachelors, and also 2) a specific one. With that in mind, I can add that the specific one of whom I was speaking is not (from what I know) an introvert, shy, unattractive, or awkward with women, or lacking in self-confidence, hence my/my friends' puzzlement. Obviously we can't know the inner workings of someone's heart/head/family situation/etc, but just FYI to clear up those factors right away.

Seraphic said...

LaLaLand, stop shaking with rage.

I was talking about how women feel about MEN. Women are attracted first to men who are great talkers--who are funny, who have amazing insights, who hold people spellbound. And men are attracted first to the real bombshells.

I don't think introverts of either sex are "second best." And I don't think plain girls are "second best." I don't think of human beings like that.

But I do notice that women notice outgoing guys before they notice quiet, self-effacing guys who can barely have a conversation at a party, and I do notice that men notice the lastest fashion in beautiful girls before the plain ones. Such is life. The plain girls do their best to even their odds, so I think the shy guys should, too.

Seraphic said...

Oh, and speaking as an INFJ (last time I checked), I long ago figured out that nothing makes men retreat like women telling them to man up. If their dad or coach or hero tells them to man up, it's probably okay. But they really, really hate it when women do.

Jam said...

Personally, although I've never found the labels "introvert" or "extrovert" particularly helpful in understanding myself, I've never been good at small talk. However at some point someone explained to me that "small talk" is all about being interested in the other person. I have to wrench myself out of thinking "Am I standing funny? I think I'm saying 'hoose' instead of 'house' again. Everyone here thinks I'm awful!" and focus on the other person. What might they want to talk about? There are boundaries you have to respect obviously and it's easy to mess up either through your own fault or just by accident. But the people I know who are really fantastic at talking to strangers are the ones who take a real interest in people and politely and good-naturedly ask them about themselves.

Eavesdropper #11 makes a good point. And I have to admit that when a guy shows up at a Young Adults event and announces that he's there because he wants to find a wife, it makes me want to run faaaaar in the opposite direction. I know that doesn't really make sense!

Do we think guys get less pressure to get married? I mean, women have the biological clock, but: does a guy who's never seriously dating anyone get pressure from family and friends about it? While I'm willing to concede that the cigar-motivated bachelor might be rare, I can imagine that a man who is self-confident and happy with his job and social life, and who never gets asked/pestered about his singleness, might just coast. Oh dear, now I've worked myself into a pro-pestering corner. Before I get jumped on I'll clarify: I'm just musing here and I don't mean to denigrate anyone's hard life experiences etc.

Seraphic said...

Jam, not to panic. Yes, women worry about biological clocks. But Catholic men worry a whole lot about sexual sin and how to keep out of it. And of course, just like women, they often feel lonely and wish they had a member of the opposite sex to take home and keep.

Southern Bloke, I don't know how old you are, but the Baby Boomers are more or less a "lost generation" where catechesis was concerned. You and I are the counter-revolution, buddy. The John XXIII-Paul VI generation were totally ripped off by conciliar confusion, and the John Paul II-Benedict XVI generation had to go to the written sources (and JP2 and B16) directly, not through our confused, semi-pagan religion teachers and, in too many cases, parents and even priests.

Someone once told me that John Paul II invited "World Youth Day" because he had given up on the Baby Boom generation and its ability to bring up its (few) kids Catholic.

Well, I don't know if there's any truth in that, but let's just observe that the John Paul II and Benedict-Francis generations have got a lot of great opportunities to learn the richness of the Catholic faith the John XXIII-Paul VI generation didn't.

Seraphic said...

@LaLaLand, I hope I've made my point more clear with an update to my post.

Anonymous said...

Seraphic - I'm about your age I'd say, gen X. And woohooo, we're counter-revolutionaries! In that case, who's first against the wall to be shot? The liturgical dance facilitator or the scriptural texts transliterator? ;)

Yeh, I used to assume my lack of knowledge about the faith was due to not attending a Catholic high school; now I realise I may have dodged the (tragically) best atheist production factories in our land. I never even heard 'discernment' or 'vocations' mentioned in my parish until my 30s!

But if we are to get more Catholic couples, we need to admit the (Western) Church is in crisis on this issue. 29inAus is right when she talks about "the need for co-operation from another person to bring an end to singleness". You can become a priest, sister or brother, or stay single by your consent alone (technically the Church has to approve religious orders, but unless you chuck up red flags, it's your choice to give yourself to God).

Married life is the only vocation that requires another person to commit their life to your choice as well. And as the statistical odds get worse for adult Catholics to even meet each other, spark and ask each other out, we need to improve those odds by promoting and supporting marriage. It's a huge question as to how that can best be done, especially for guys who have the kind of issues mentioned by Joe & pomofa, etc.

Thanks again for sparking such conversations off. One reason guys like me eavesdrop is because this is one of the few places I have found where such Church/life matters are discussed (most of my friends are lapsed Catholics or atheists - love 'em, but sigh...).

Southern Bloke.

Seraphic said...

Does anyone know of a Catholic version of "Art of Manliness"? Or, if there isn't one, does any Eavesdropper feel called to start one?

LaLaLand said...

I'm sorry!!! I didn't mean to make anyone angry!! I was just very upset by the idea. :-( :-( :-(
It is a very sensitive issue. I am very sorry if I misconstrued what you were trying to say. I am frequently the recipient of condescending remarks about my personality, and it seemed that you were doing the same thing. Sorry!!!

LaLaLand said...

And I wasn't trying to be belitting towards the guys who said they were introverted. I'm sorry. I happen to know a lot of pseudo-men (they are real jerks and do not treat women with respect) who use excuses like "I'm introverted" (for example) to hide behind lazy or unmanly behavior. I'm sorry I supposed that these guys were doing the same.
It is just frustrating to me as a fellow introvert and as a woman to have people "mis-use" the introvert concept. I am really sorry!!

Seraphic said...

LaLaLand, I don't like the idea of you getting frequent remarks about your personality. It sounds like you might be around some very rude people and, if so, no wonder you were upset.

If you like, send me an email about what's going on, and I'll see if I can think of anything helpful. Is it workplace bullying? I loathe workplace bullying soooo much!

Pearlmusic said...

Wow! A great discussion anyway and a great idea of us gals here getting some opinions from male point of view. I would like to add some questions related more or less to the topic, if I may, on which men’s answer would be welcome:
1. Generally most of us (women) here agree on men being more proactive in initiating a relationship than women. However, we also realize that – particularly introvert – guys might need a bit of our encouragement. So what would you (men) count as encouragement from a woman: a smile, a small talk, an invitation to a party or event she’s hosting? And – quite the opposite – what would be too much of a woman: to call you first, to invite you on a date?
2. Does a woman you were initially attracted to lose her attractiveness in your eyes as she starts, in a way, chasing you?
3. Do you ever feel so intimidated by a single woman you’re into that you will never ask her out?
Perhaps this would be a material for another discussion :)

TRS said...

Thank you Seraphic for this: (Youth is to a woman what money is to a man, incidentally, and we're scared men will use ours all up and then kick us to the curb. No-fault divorce cuts both ways)
I didn't realize that I lived it until I read it in your words.
Amazing.

Also, I can get behind pearlmusics questions, particularly number three. In my youth, many consoled me with tales of intimidated men. I don't tend to believe it.
But now I'm old and single and I can't possibly be intimidating.
I think that is one of the worst lies.

Michael said...

@Seraphic

I'm honestly thinking to ask the bishop's marriage ministry office to write a pastoral letter how Catholics should implement a new "ultra-libertarian" dating culture (w/o sex or lies). Our marriages should be stable, yes, but exactly the opposite is true for dates and especially the first. They should be flexible in any way: easy to get but, very often and with no early emotional involvement. The rest then can grow or die out naturally.

It's a sort of deregulation, which would benefit the introverts the most, because the have a better chance to show their qualities, than, to say, in a group setting.

Lynn said...

I would like to encourage truly introverted men, because as an introverted (though very friendly) woman, few things drive me up a wall like an extroverted man who cannot understand and is wounded by my need to be alone and quiet sometimes. It's great to be introverted! Just be friendly when it's appropriate.

amlovesmusic said...

pearlmusic's questions are also what I would love to have answered!!!!

Also, once we do try to encourage him, when should we stop and figure he's just not that into us?

I find this discussion fascinating because I am friends with at least 3 men in their 30s who have never been married. I know why one of them hasn't - he is a very unique man....not handsome, and he knows he's not handsome. Unfortunately he also has very unique interests and occupations, so it's going to be hard for him to find someone to sympathize with him.

But, to the men who bemoan that they are not good-looking and/or have nothing to say to women, I have good news for you. There is a way you CAN make an impression. You can't change your face, but you can change your facial hair and haircut. A good haircut and a good shave or a neatly trimmed beard can make a "blah" man look handsome. And, clothing helps too!! If you lack confidence, try investing some time and money into your wardrobe and learn how to dress yourself. Females are much more attracted to men at first who are well-dressed. First impressions mean a lot. Also, contacts are a must if you are able to wear them, unless you have some trendy glasses.

As for conversations...I am not good at them myself, but good starters are "So, is this your first time at ___?" followed by inquiries as to why you came, what you do, etc. It's not much and may only carry the conversation for 5 minutes, but it's a start. Plus, if you have made yourself look as presentable as you can, there is a good chance the lady may continue the conversation by asking YOU some questions.

I can't wait for tomorrow's post!

Julia said...

I don't have much of huge value to contribute to this discussion really, being only 23 and not having 'marriage in the near future' on my priority list at this point.

I will reflect a little on some of this, though.

29inAus - I'm an Aussie too, and most practising young Catholics I know are women. And to be honest, most of those women are foreign students, not Australian citizens. Having said that, my Archdiocese is large and appears to have a decent outreach to young people, which at this stage I haven't been involved in much due to an extremely demanding university course.

LaLaLand, I'd classify myself as an introvert too. I recently read a book called 'Quiet' by an American author called Susan Cain, and as a result I do not envy introverts who live in the US. In Australia we do have some social preference for extraversion (think the 'Aussie larrikan') but it's probably not as extreme - Australian comedy and satire will also rather often parody the 'loudmouth' stereotype. I'm happy being an introvert, and I would definitely not consider myself to be shy (I make myself go to events where I know I'll know no-one), but at times I do wish I was extraverted because it worries me slightly that I don't seem to need more contact with people.


Okay. I think I might be getting onto a slight cultural thing here. I know I mentioned the 'Aussie larrikin', but I honestly don't know loads of Aussie men like that. I wonder if American men who are introverts suffer particularly badly due to the USA having a strong preference for extraverts. Australian men are generally pretty reticent, and that's culturally acceptable here. I think there are American cultural expectations that would go down like a lead balloon here in Australia. For example, I can never imagine a US-style election campaign happening here - too big and loud. Southern Bloke, if you are still reading, do you have any thoughts on this? (I'm assuming because of your moniker that you're either an Aussie or a New Zealander, although I suppose you could be from a southern county in the UK).

Also, introverted men might remember that there are introverted women who are not interested in being talked at all the time by extraverts. I don't see why introversion is seen as a negative characteristic to have in courtship, unless it devolves into social anxiety. And the two are not one and the same AT ALL. As I've said, I'm not shy and I don't think anyone who knows me would say that I am, but I am an INCORRIGIBLE INTROVERT.

I like Seraphic's suggestion that introverts should sit next to the chatterboxes! I've done this sometimes, probably not totally consciously. I just sit with a group of chatty people and listen. It's not boring. Unless they start shrieking, as young women sometimes do.

I have to finish here for now, but I'll probably spend the day thinking about this, so I might return.

westerngal said...

Just wanted to add that as an introvert myself I disagree that women in general notice the outgoing men first. I always notice more the quieter men in a group, but the problem is in getting to interact with them to begin an acquaintance, without resorting to "chasing men". (Which in my experience never works anyway.)

sciencegirl said...

I loved the book "Quiet," but it does indulge in some exaggeration. I am surprised so many people claim shyness or introversion is the reason for unmarried nice men because, as a scientist, I know so many nice, shy, introverted, softspoken MARRIED men and completely quiet guys with GIRLFRIENDS. I suppose all each of these quiet, shy men calmly looked inside himself, reflected on his desire for a wife or girlfriend, and then took the steps to get one. Introversion and even shyness do not equal passivity. As a matter of fact, the unmarried men I know in their late 40s are delightful, personable, have lots of friends and dear family, and talk plenty! They have dated, but never found the right woman to marry.

Julia said...

Sciencegirl, I agree with you when you say that 'Introversion and even shyness do not equal passivity.' I wonder whether some lines have been a little blurred in this discussion. I know some very confident, well-spoken men who I suspect would classify themselves as introverts (the same goes for women). Being an introvert doesn't mean having a social phobia or lacking social skills (I mean, there are some people who display the characteristics of extraversion who lack social skills). I think it refers to general preferences - as an introvert, I'd rather spend time with smaller groups of people than with a bunch of random people in a noisy environment. I'm not nervous, I'm just bored.

TRS, you say that 'In my youth, many consoled me with tales of intimidated men. I don't tend to believe it. But now I'm old and single and I can't possibly be intimidating. I think that is one of the worst lies.' A lot of us girls hear this line, but I'd hesitate to say that it's a full-on lie. Through reading Eavesdroppers' comments on this blog, I've started to realise that men actually can find women intimidating, and come on, not many of us are supermodels. That some men are intimidated by women is a weird concept for me, because most women are pretty dorky (I mean that with great affection). I wouldn't necessarily say that your being 'old and single' means that you can't possibly be intimidating to men.

Michael, you say that 'I'm honestly thinking to ask the bishop's marriage ministry office to write a pastoral letter how Catholics should implement a new "ultra-libertarian" dating culture (w/o sex or lies). Our marriages should be stable, yes, but exactly the opposite is true for dates and especially the first. They should be flexible in any way: easy to get but, very often and with no early emotional involvement. The rest then can grow or die out naturally.' I'm not sure exactly how anyone could 'implement a new "ultra-libertarian" dating culture' or even quite what you mean by that, but I think you're right to suggest that dating needs to be more 'flexible'. I've noticed that in my twenty-something peer group, 'dating' is not a thing. People just declare mutual attraction, and then they're 'a couple'. The more I think about it, the madder it seems. There seems to be this mad rush to jump into exclusivity. I mean, people celebrate things like two-month 'dating anniversaries'. How do you have an 'anniversary' before a year is up? And how do you measure it? First date? Declaration of 'feelings'? I don't mean to criticise anyone who has done this type of thing, but to me it seems odd. Why celebrate anniversaries in a relationship that isn't stable? I wouldn't think of 'dating' relationships as being stable. I mean, until you're married, the whole thing is entirely conditional.

Amlovesmusic, good advice about the grooming and appearance. I see many, many poorly-dressed and poorly-groomed men out and about. I know you meant the comment for men, but I'll say I wish I could wear contacts instead of glasses. I tried, and I think I look better in them, but what's all this about not being able to wear them for more than 8-10 hours at a stretch? This was at a time when I would quite frequently leave my house at 7am and return at 7pm. And they made my eyes itch. So for the moment my hipster frames remain. Maybe I'll go in for Round 2 of Julia vs. Contact Lenses at a later stage.

Sheila said...

Seraphic, you're an INFJ? No wonder you remind me of my mother -- she is one too. (Also one of my favorite people -- so it's a compliment to be like her.)

I know two "confirmed bachelors." One is my brother, who as far as I can tell has absolutely no interest in getting married. If he randomly bumped into exactly the perfect girl, and she was VERY forward about liking him, it might happen, but otherwise I doubt it. He told my mom, "I don't think I could ever find a woman who agreed with me about everything, and I don't think I'm tolerant enough to live with a woman who didn't." Fair enough! I honestly feel he isn't called to marriage (or the priesthood) and is perfect as he is. He's incredibly particular and introverted, and living alone makes him happy. I don't think that's selfish -- God doesn't want us to be miserable, does he?

The other guy, because I know him quite well, I am relatively sure does want to be married. But like my brother, he's extremely introverted AND shy (not the same thing btw), and almost all the ways you meet women are extroverted activities. To ask him to spend every weekend at Catholic singles events, wearing himself out and trying to get up the guts to talk to total strangers, only to be shot down nine times out of ten ... that's a lot to ask! He does go to a lot of events, but the process from first contact to first date is longer with introverts -- how are you supposed to get from point A to point B in half an hour's conversation at Theology on Tap? And yet, if he doesn't leap on the opportunity, he might never see her again.

I'd like to set him up with a few people, but I don't know how to ask this. Wouldn't he be offended that I think he needs help? And his family is always putting pressure on him too. I don't want to give the impression that I think something's wrong with him because he's single. I just think that he does want to get married, and with his temperament and male-dominated career, it's hard for him to meet people.

I must say, though, that some women are very much attracted to shy guys. I always have been, though since I'm a bit shy myself it's always hard to figure out what to do about it. But I think it's fair to say that striking up a conversation, giving a compliment, friending on Facebook, inviting to your parties, and touching their arm from time to time isn't chasing. And yet, they are creating the sort of friendly relationship that a shy guy would feel comfortable taking to the next level.

29inAus said...

I think Southern Bloke and Michael might be on to something, suggesting that we are in crisis on this issue and that the faithful need a whole new approach/philosophy to dating. Sixty years ago (and for centuries prior to that), the older (25+) single person was the exception to the rule ... in Catholic circles we are becoming more and more the norm.

A male friend brought this issue up the other day, telling me how so many of his Catholic male friends are frustrated because they feel that when they ask a girl out, she always says no. And I was trying to explain that, along with my Catholic girl friends, I feel frustrated because it seems that so few Catholic guys are asking anyone out! And so it occurs to me that, if we all feel this way, the only person who can make any difference, right now, to the 'Catholic dating scene' is you (or me), one date, and eventually, hopefully, one marriage, at a time. You, me, and, of course, the Holy Spirit.

So, I'm going to go away from this discussion and pray about what it is I need to change if I'm going to do my little bit :)

Anonymous said...

Haha, okay Julia, you flushed me out, I'm a Kiwi in Auckland (city of 1.5 million people; not too many sheep any more). Yep, the 'strong, silent Southern man' is a stereotype - most Australasian men don't fit that, but mold themselves to it in public settings (ever notice how vocal guys are among a male crowd, like at cricket matches or in the pub talking rugby?). See 3 below for more on this.

PearlMusic - good questions (I think Seraphic covered some of these in a prior Gentlemen's Day). In order:

1. Smile & chat - that shows guys you like them as friends. To get a date without explicitly asking for one, be stunningly blunt. Perhaps something like 'gee, it would be great to be asked on a date at that new cafe XYZ' while looking pointedly at your prospective beau. Subtle it ain't, but we blokes are remarkably thick at picking up when a girl is romantically keen on us. Often we don't want to ruin a friendship with a romantic overture unless we are sure a girl is keen for a date...

@ amlovesmusic - don't put a timeline on how long to wait. Just get on with life, and if another guy of interest pops up, try the same with him. Some guys are slow burners, they take time to assess a girl who has shown interest before asking her out (if they do, as mentioned, they may never ask her out for other reasons). So don't shut him out, but don't wait just for him.

2. No, I don't mind if you call first or ask me on a date, but I'm possibly not your typical bloke.

3. Yes, though I reckon 'intimidated' is the wrong word. Like Julia said about 'Aussie larrikin' stereotypes being atypical for real Oz men, I think the notion of 'intimidating' women is really code for men having low self-esteem, and thinking themselves a bit unworthy of a woman they admire. She's cute, successful in her career, earns a good paycheck, and the guy is suddenly wondering what he brings to the party?

Add to that, that is actually quite hard to get one-on-one time chatting to a girl, and a fella suddenly finds he is heading home without having asked her on a date. This is made worse if you have an audience when trying to ask someone out - hint: if you see a single man talking to a single woman after Mass, DO NOT go up and talk to them! Give them the space to chat/ask on dates. They'll join you later if they really want to. Cos' a bit like Sheila said, he may not see her again.

Finally, amlovesmusic & Julia, yeh, we jokers could do a better job on grooming/clothing, but we don't have the feedback circle you gals do. Guys don't normally give supportive comments about clothes their mates wear that they like (bit gay to do that, eh?), so we operate in a near-zero feedback zone.

I've said too much already - sorry Aunty :)

Southern Bloke.

Anonymous said...

Haha, okay Julia, you flushed me out, I'm a Kiwi in Auckland (city of 1.5 million people; not too many sheep any more). Yep, the 'strong, silent Southern man' is a stereotype - most Australasian men don't fit that, but mold themselves to it in public settings (ever notice how vocal guys are among a male crowd, like at cricket matches or in the pub talking rugby?). See 3 below for more on this.

PearlMusic - good questions (I think Seraphic covered some of these in a prior Gentlemen's Day). In order:

1. Smile & chat - that shows guys you like them as friends. To get a date without explicitly asking for one, be stunningly blunt. Perhaps something like 'gee, it would be great to be asked on a date at that new cafe XYZ' while looking pointedly at your prospective beau. Subtle it ain't, but we blokes are remarkably thick at picking up when a girl is romantically keen on us. Often we don't want to ruin a friendship with a romantic overture unless we are sure a girl is keen for a date...

@ amlovesmusic - don't put a timeline on how long to wait. Just get on with life, and if another guy of interest pops up, try the same with him. Some guys are slow burners, they take time to assess a girl who has shown interest before asking her out (if they do, as mentioned, they may never ask her out for other reasons). So don't shut him out, but don't wait just for him.

2. No, I don't mind if you call first or ask me on a date, but I'm possibly not your typical bloke.

3. Yes, though I reckon 'intimidated' is the wrong word. Like Julia said about 'Aussie larrikin' stereotypes being atypical for real Oz men, I think the notion of 'intimidating' women is really code for men having low self-esteem, and thinking themselves a bit unworthy of a woman they admire. She's cute, successful in her career, earns a good paycheck, and the guy is suddenly wondering what he brings to the party?

Add to that, that is actually quite hard to get one-on-one time chatting to a girl, and a fella suddenly finds he is heading home without having asked her on a date. This is made worse if you have an audience when trying to ask someone out - hint: if you see a single man talking to a single woman after Mass, DO NOT go up and talk to them! Give them the space to chat/ask on dates. They'll join you later if they really want to. Cos' a bit like Sheila said, he may not see her again.

Finally, amlovesmusic & Julia, yeh, we jokers could do a better job on grooming/clothing, but we don't have the feedback circle you gals do. Guys don't normally give supportive comments about clothes their mates wear that they like (bit gay to do that, eh?), so we operate in a near-zero feedback zone.

29inAus, you night owl ;) Yeh, we are the new norm I guess. And you are right, we should all pray and do what we can, but I think the bishops have to take action. Marriage is a sacrament much neglected by diocesan HQ, and it is (supposed to be) the source of the baptisms most priests obsess about. Maybe we should all ask our priests to give sermons on the value of marriage, and the responsibility of married parishioners to be open to young adult marriages and helpful to searching singles?

I've said too much already - sorry Aunty :)

Southern Bloke.

Anonymous said...

Haha, okay Julia, you flushed me out, I'm a Kiwi in Auckland (city of 1.5 million people; not too many sheep any more). Yep, the 'strong, silent Southern man' is a stereotype - most Australasian men don't fit that, but mold themselves to it in public settings (ever notice how vocal guys are among a male crowd, like at cricket matches or in the pub talking rugby?). See 3 below for more on this.

PearlMusic - good questions (I think Seraphic covered some of these in a prior Gentlemen's Day). In order:

1. Smile & chat - that shows guys you like them as friends. To get a date without explicitly asking for one, be stunningly blunt. Perhaps something like 'gee, it would be great to be asked on a date at that new cafe XYZ' while looking pointedly at your prospective beau. Subtle it ain't, but we blokes are remarkably thick at picking up when a girl is romantically keen on us. Often we don't want to ruin a friendship with a romantic overture unless we are sure a girl is keen for a date...

@ amlovesmusic - don't put a timeline on how long to wait. Just get on with life, and if another guy of interest pops up, try the same with him. Some guys are slow burners, they take time to assess a girl who has shown interest before asking her out (if they do, as mentioned, they may never ask her out for other reasons). So don't shut him out, but don't wait just for him.

2. No, I don't mind if you call first or ask me on a date, but I'm possibly not your typical bloke.

3. Yes, though I reckon 'intimidated' is the wrong word. Like Julia said about 'Aussie larrikin' stereotypes being atypical for real Oz men, I think the notion of 'intimidating' women is really code for men having low self-esteem, and thinking themselves a bit unworthy of a woman they admire. She's cute, successful in her career, earns a good paycheck, and the guy is suddenly wondering what he brings to the party?

Add to that, that is actually quite hard to get one-on-one time chatting to a girl, and a fella suddenly finds he is heading home without having asked her on a date. This is made worse if you have an audience when trying to ask someone out - hint: if you see a single man talking to a single woman after Mass, DO NOT go up and talk to them! Give them the space to chat/ask on dates. They'll join you later if they really want to. Cos' a bit like Sheila said, he may not see her again.

Finally, amlovesmusic & Julia, yeh, we jokers could do a better job on grooming/clothing, but we don't have the feedback circle you gals do. Guys don't normally give supportive comments about clothes their mates wear that they like (bit gay to do that, eh?), so we operate in a near-zero feedback zone.

29inAus, you night owl ;) Yeh, we are the new norm I guess. And you are right, we should all pray and do what we can, but I think the bishops have to take action. Marriage is a sacrament much neglected by diocesan HQ, and it is (supposed to be) the source of the baptisms most priests obsess about. Maybe we should all ask our priests to give sermons on the value of marriage, and the responsibility of married parishioners to be open to young adult marriages and helpful to searching singles?

I've said too much already - sorry Aunty :)

Southern Bloke.

Sheila said...

Perhaps this Seraphically Nice Catholic Guy blog should also have style tips! Do Women Like Facial Hair, How to Tie a Tie, You Could Use to Iron Your Pants Once in a While, that sort of post.

Julia said...

Southern Bloke - Ah, yes, the cricket/rugby/footy! I guess this is where the men get a bit louder. But I wouldn't know, because I don't go to matches.

That'd be true about men not having the 'feedback circle' that women do when it comes to appearance. However, the female feedback circle is not bulletproof either. Sometimes women advise each other to wear some pretty stupid things. Have you even seen something a woman is wearing and thought, 'Huh?' Yeah, her best friend probably convinced her to buy it.

Sheila, I don't really have any insights for you about your bachelor friend. You mention that he's in a male-dominated field, but maybe things wouldn't really be that different for him in a female-dominated or mixed field. It really doesn't help much if a man's female colleagues are all married ladies or in relationships. I'm in an evenly-mixed field, but my particular specialty is very male-dominated. If I had ever hoped to start a relationship with any of those guys, well, I would have been disappointed because even as very young men many of them have 'serious' girlfriends. But they tended to bring their girlfriends to events and then I could rejoice that I would have other women to talk to.

TRS said...

To the blokes.... I'm not sure a feed back circle is needed. Most women can overlook a sad sense of style if a man can at least look kempt.
I went to a Catholic speed dating event last summer and the men in my age group ( approaching 40) looked like they weren't even trying to dress for the women. Several wore shirts with threadbare collars, one had crusty wads of dried spittle in the corners of his mouth ( not fantasizing about kissing HIM!)

A faded, threadbare shirt suggests several things... One, that he's been wearing the same few shirts for years at a time, two, he's too cheap to buy clothes, three, if that's shirt is top in his rotation, he really doesn't take pride in his appearance. If he doesn't take pride in taking care of himself, how can I expect him to want to take care of me?
Granted, I realize a man who has gone without a wife for 40 years doesn't benefit from a woman's touch... And I want to give them allowances for that, but it is quite difficult to look passed.
You don't need to have a smashing sense of style, just show that you can take care of yourself.

And when entering a room a beautiful, single, eligible, faithful women, show that you can make an effort.

Gemma said...

Seraphic, in one of your comments above you asked if anyone knew of a Catholic version of The Art of Manliness. The article you linked to in today's post somehow brought me to a Catholic Men's blog. I went through it very briefly, but it might be of interest. Here is the link. http://thecatholicgentleman.wordpress.com.

Seraphic said...

Oh dear. Poor bachelors. So many of them can't actually take care of themselves. Even if they're impeccably groomed, they may be subsisting on a diet of toasted cheese sandwiches.

Anyway, Gemma, thank you very much. I had a look, and if the author has staying power (he's just started it I see), I think it will be a great blog.

TRS said...

Hmm. If the snark of that comment was directed at mine, you may want to read it again.
I didn't insist on impeccable grooming, only on the basic hygiene and grooming standards of a seven year old.

Lets face it, it's quite basic to expect that bodily fluids of any kind not gather on one's face (or any part of the body). After all, if that's how one keeps one's face, there's no need to see how they keep their home!

I'm only suggesting that if there are men whose every attempt at asking for a date has been refused, this is where they should start their inspection.

Worn out clothes are for chore time, not for wooing.

Seraphic said...

Was there snark? Who snarked? Nobody is allowed to snark except me and even then no snark against readers is allowed.

Seraphic said...

Oh, I guess you think I was snarking. I wasn't snarking. I was honestly feeling sorry for poor old bachelors. So many of them really can't take care of themselves. I often think that if my bachelor uncle had convinced that girl to marry him, he'd still be alive. And my brother's eating habits before he married... (Yeah, Nulli, admit it.) Don't think his shirts were worn out, though.

Alisha said...

In agreement with TRS. There is no excuse not to know how to take care of yourself: we live in an internet age with forums and advice for everything. There's probably an app for helping you dress, for heaven's sake. Even if you are not in good habits, if you are going out to meet people AND you want to be considered a potential romantic partner, but do not even look basically neat and clean, what is one supposed to think?

Julia said...

Sorry to return late to this discussion.

I've been thinking a little about the discussion above regarding men's grooming etc. I've often wondered why it is that men seem to need wives if they're to stay healthy and well-groomed.

I think I read somewhere that there was some sort of study (possibly a scientific one) that suggested/proved that men are less likely than women to perceive mess and uncleanliness around them. So maybe the issue is not always simply laziness, but rather that men just have trouble 'seeing' the mess and dirt that women see. Maybe this is related to the old 'domestic blindness' cliché. Having said that, I do have a brother who is scrupulously clean and tidy.

Seraphic, I've read one of your posts in which you discuss the importance of symbolism to women. I think women's thoughts on men's appearances is related to this. There is the idea that women in general prefer men who have muscular physiques. This is considered to be because such a physique suggests that a man could protect a family etc, but I think that in today's world it also suggests that a man knows how to take care of himself by working out and eating well and probably cooking. Such a man is perceived to be someone who wouldn't need to be taken care of, which would appeal to many women, I'd say.