A meditative rose

Brilliant Toothpaste for Dinner

Alternately, to try and appear a little more pseud (stolen … umm .. leveraged from the Black Mamba)
“We are like sculptors, constantly carving out of others the image we long for, need, love or desire, often against reality, against their benefit, and always, in the end, a disappointment, because it does not fit them.” - Anais Nin

Overheard at Michigan and Randolph …

Desi woman on cellphone: “I would never have sex with a virgin … unless he had good home-cooked south Indian food to offer”

My new best friend

You were supposed to have a commitment problem!! — Sex and the City

Ok .. so that’s my guilty pleasure .. the one time a week my TV comes on.

So maybe the only thing I have in common with Carrie Bradshaw is being neurotic, but I would be as freaked out if an ex decided to take the plunge … also think I would feel better if he got together with some random floozy, rather than someone I could respect. Because that way I’ll just think I had bad judgment, not that I wasn’t good enough.

Aargghh … don’t know why it matters. I don’t even like him very much any more. Though I’m still trying to do the friend thing. Don’t think it’s working. But he cried when I told him I didn’t want to. Don’t know why. Didn’t ask. Just couldn’t see him cry. Don’t know why. Since I don’t really like him that much any more.

Really.

Came across this hilarious article in the Nytimes, about how people stay away from buying real estate because they have deeper issues with making a commitment (and I always thought it was the obscenely high prices …)

Well, having gone through this process myself a few months ago, I realise that this link between committing to a house and commiting to a relationship (based on experience and a solid NPV model) is tenuous at best and a self-created smoke-screen at worst. I approached the issue from the other side, realising that I was fast turning into a ‘toxic bachelorette’ (term coined by one Smugly Married Person). Having been conditioned into thinking that was a Bad Thing, I figured I should get over my fear of commitment by getting myself to commit to a place to stay (would be a big deal - have averaged 7 months in an apt over the last 3 years), before actually getting into a relationship that had any hope of going anywhere (more on that another time - know I’m going to get comments of the sort, why does it have go anywhere etc., but what the hell … pls to refer to depreciating asset post)

Anyway, so here’s why the link doesn’t work …
- It reminds me why I hate commitment. Over the past few weeks, I’ve considered moving to NY, and to Malaysia (don’t ask). Not that I would necessarily have followed through on either of those anyway, but being reminded that there might be something better out there, and I can’t get up and explore it makes home and hearth seem more like ball and chain.
- It’s not really a commitment. Based on my trusty NPV model, I need 3.5% appreciation in value for 3 years before I break-even on selling. I don’t think 3 years is the timeframe my mom has in mind when she says I should ’settle down’. And of course, assumptions can be convenienly tweaked to bring that break-even period down even further.
- I’m constantly looking for my ‘out’. I just surfed through rental listings on craigslist (yes, that’s what I surf craigslist for), to see what I could expect to rent my place for if I had to leave right away. I think if I were married, I’d have a divorce lawyer’s number on speed dial.

Btw, the article makes an interesting point about how single women are scared about buying 1-BR condos because it implies that they are resigned to staying single forever. To that, I say - 3 years, sister…

And as for me, I’m clearly resigned … though in a good way

Somehow my male friends don’t seem to agree with the depreciating asset argument that tremendously increases the urgency for women to get married/lock into relationships as opposed to men. I think it’s basically because women are just smarter than men. Women are typically attracted to men with money and power (ability to provide), and these would increase with age. Men, on the other hand, are typically attracted to women for their looks and youth (child-bearing ability). So clearly, women become depreciating assets in this market while men keep appreciating. The interesting thing is that men are willing to lock into a depreciating asset, without realising that they should try and invest in one that also has characteristics that would maintain or increase value.

The counter-argument to this is that this might hold for the market in general, but if you are a woman who brings to the table more than child-bearing ability, you would want to be with someone who appreciates those other qualities. But again, since women are smarter, the longer you wait, the more men able to value this would have been taken out of circulation … so, as a woman, if all you want to do is bear and raise children, you lose value with age, and if you want to find a man who appreciates you for more reasons than that, you had better snag him before someone else does.

The real danger though is to realise that this difficulty shouldn’t lead one to compromise for the sake of getting a commitment, any commitment. And it is tough to counter the social pressure that tells you to do so - a ‘friend’ recently told me that I wasn’t being realistic … looking for someone smart and interesting … so picky!!! … but hey, I am realistic about the fact that I might not find someone who meets my criteria .. I still don’t think it’s worth relaxing them.

What, you say!! Two posts in one day!!! Has to be the laptop …

No, this is just too hilarious not to be shared right away, plus input may be valuable … So, as most of you may have known or guessed, my parents have been trying, rather unsuccessfully, to put me on the marriage market (btw, if anyone knows how to get them to give up on me, will save me a lot of pain and them a lot of time, so will be eternally grateful). So after months of finding excuses not to interact with these people , I finally caved in and agreed to speak to doctor boy conveniently located in Chicago. Thought a free dinner couldn’t hurt, plus this way I don’t have to handle the kataoing process, my parents can take care of it (would be so nice if they could break up with every man I’ve dated instead of me having to do it myself). So anyway, I take the call. In the first 30 seconds, I had to remind myself not to dismiss the guy because he just said ‘hech’ and ‘jeero’ … as someone pointed out a few days ago - the only acceptable form of snobbery is intellectual snobbery … so I decided to wait a bit to let the snobbery kick in. Thankfully, the man didn’t disappoint me - he started by extolling the many virtues of Chicago - so many Indian restaurants, Indian movie theaters, so many temples … restaurants I buy, but I’ve kind of skipped the last two (also thought I shouldn’t mention that I’d probably not be allowed in a temple because I eat way too much beef). The other virtue of Chicago was also stated to be the opportunity to enjoy ’suburban life’ - where the obvious comment would have been that that’s an oxymoron, but I resisted making it because I’d then have to explain what an oxymoron was. So, on being told that I was actually more interested in reading and the theater, man goes on to acknowledge the existence of ‘American Drama’ in Chicago!!!!!! Well, granted that the theater scene here isn’t always perfect, and I can create drama over it (ref recent post on obscene Dollhouse adaptation) … this was a little too much to take. Another major qualification this person brought to the table was the fact that he had ‘well-settled’ family in New Jersey - now, given that I’m losing my place to crash in Manhattan in a few months, a replacement would have been attractive, but New Jersey just doesn’t work - that too with sundry relatives thrown in… What I don’t get is, how after a 20 minute conversation, where there was obviously nothing in common, nothing to talk about, and where my only contribution was to make monosyllabic responses, the man had the gall to suggest we meet up!!! So, since I don’t really know how these things work, I’m ashamed to admit I agreed to do so, and date has been set for Wednesday after work (just coffee - I’m not even getting a free dinner out of this ). So I’ve been trying to decide how to salvage some value out of this whole experience (I don’t think a $3 coffee will do it - though I guess I could get a brownie as well) … please to give suggestions on how to maximize amusement value. Possibilities:
- Actually pretend to be homely, fair, convent-educated sweet girl (the last two I technically am, and no - I am NOT homely). Could be fun - I’ll see if I can actually pull off enough soundbites about going to temples religiously (i.e. not just for prasad), and making the perfect aloo mutter … a challenge is always fun.
- When man asks me about cooking experience (which I’m sure he will), ask him about sexual experience, saying I’m concerned about being with someone who can’t keep up with me (have to confess this idea is stolen from friend who actually got asked the question)
- Be totally honest and discuss views on marriage as social contract, and with reduction of the need for external validation (which I’m actively working on), how the value of marriage would go down, and how the only reason I would consider getting married is because I think I’m a depreciating asset, and men are stupid enough to lock into a depreciating asset .. reaction might be amusing …

Anyway, at the least, I’ll miss rush hour traffic on the way back from work - just hope I don’t lose my parking spot …

A discussion on an analysis to determine whether a relationship would create value and be sustainable reminded me of a big peeve a certain ex-boyfriend used to have - about how I analyzed every situation from a cost-benefit perspective. This always left me confused - though I couldn’t vocalize why at the time - maybe at that point I still felt guilty about letting reason guide me … I’ve clearly grown up since then Anyway, I don’t see how a relationship, or any action, that is based on no rational thought is superior to one that we go through with only if it makes sense.

Why such an analysis makes sense is clear – costs exist in any transaction, so you need to assess them and acknowledge that the benefit is greater to go ahead with the transaction. Of course, the costs and benefits don’t need to be tangible or even rational – driving an hour to pick someone up from the airport may be worth it, if you feel seeing them an hour earlier is worth it (not that I would ever do that ). Or, doing something for a person just to make them happy adds value to you, if their happiness matters to you. So we can easily use this framework to assess so called ‘unselfish’ relationships, or those based solely on emotion, not reason.

The more interesting question is, why is doing such an analysis considered cold? I’m not sure I have the answer, but I’ve tried to come up with a couple of potential reasons someone could think this analysis is either unnecessary to make a good decision, or even suspect the motives of someone who does perform this analysis.

I guess the first would be, if the cost is too low – the major costs involved in relationships (ongoing relationships – let’s ignore transaction and entry/exit costs here) are time, giving up or compromising on one’s own views and preferences, suppressing one’s own interests to achieve a level comfortable to both parties, etc. For someone with a strong identity and personality, this wouldn’t be true – so we can safely banish these types to the fringes of our world, where they can wallow in sloth and mediocrity – oh wait – they’re already there, living in the ‘burbs.

The other argument would be if the benefit one gained was so high as to not require any analysis at all – it’s likely it can outweigh any cost that can reasonably be expected. This might be a better argument, but I see two flaws in it. The first is that if the benefit were really that high, you wouldn’t be so defensive about conducting the analysis – what are you scared of finding. The other is that, if you are capable of entering into a relationship with someone who provides such high benefit, it’s very likely that you bring a lot to the table yourself. So, going back to the first argument, the cost to you is likely to be fairly high as well, so a trade-off against the benefits might well be worth it.

The last argument could be that suffering (cost > benefit) is good, or at least, irrelevant, so you don’t need to guard against it. This is again interesting, because I could make an argument that short-term suffering may not necessarily imply long-term suffering, so sticking it out through the rough times could still lead to a net benefit scenario over the long term. For this to hold, you need entry and exit costs. If these were non-existent, you make a series of short-term decisions and jump in and out of relationships when they provide benefit to you. Of course, you could choose to not be in a relationship at all – you form friendships, which lower both the cost and the benefit (though maybe to a smaller extent), and have no exit costs, and limited entry costs. The other issue with making short-term decisions is that entry costs, in particular, will go up tremendously with time (especially for women, being depreciating assets ). So you might want to cut your losses and lock in what benefit you can today (sum Benefit > (sum Regular costs + sum Entry costs), though sum Benefit < sum Costs for the particular relationship being evaluated)

This, and another comment about unconditional love, also set me thinking. Isn’t it true that someone who hasn’t done a cost benefit analysis doesn’t truly love me for myself? If I think I have enough worth to bring value to a relationship and to the other person, I would welcome such an analysis. Even if I have doubts about my own worth, I have to recognize that the only way a relationship can be sustainable is if I bring to the table qualities that my partner values, and in greater quality than are available to him elsewhere.

If he doesn’t do this, I am stuck with someone who likes me for ‘the way I laugh’. Next thing you know, he’ll be saying he likes me because I look sexy in black, or because I have nice hair. That’s just incidental, honey, that’s not who I am. I deserve better than that…