A Mox On Both Your Houses

Normally I'd let this pass as it's obviously designed to get geeks in an uproar: Alyssa Bereznak's Gizmodo article bashing Jon Finkel, a former Magic: The Gathering world champion, after they went on a few dates. However, it's been a few days and I still feel the need to talk about it.

That plus I had the article sent to me by quite a number of people. Apparently my friends associate me with magic. Awesome!

There was a time in my youth when becoming a pro MTG player was a life goal. Hell, what am I saying. That's still on my goals list. Maybe I still have some decks hanging around. Maybe one of my friends has the Power Nine locked up in his safe, next to his gun and important documents. (I ogled the cards, avoided the gun, and photographic memoried the documents) Maybe if you call and say you're looking to play some Magic, I'll be right over.

The one girl I liked in high school was reasonably adept at Magic. Let me rephrase that. This one girl in high school was reasonably adept at Magic and thus I liked her. It saddens me to think that people would get shunned in the dating world simply because they were really great at something dorky. In today's culture, everyone is into something nerdy, as Patton Oswald argued. How you gonna hate on Magic when you obsess over _____?!

In support of Finkel, I'm going to change my OK Cupid profile. The section for what I'm doing with my life will now read "aspiring Magic the Gathering world champion." My six things I could never do without will be red, white, blue, black, green, and colorless mana. I hope nobody takes that ironically because I won't be replying if they do. In addition, the next girl that says "phelddagrif" to me I'm going to propose to. I hope she'll agree that our budget wedding should be MTG themed.

Apparently in 2000, ESPN2 televised the Magic World Championships between Finkel and Bob Maher. Where was I when this was happening? Finkel has won hundreds of thousands of dollars playing Magic, was immortalized in a card, took Vegas for lots of money playing blackjack, and is now a managing partner at a hedge fund. How you gonna reject a resume like that?

The whole time I was reading about Alyssa's article and its subsequent fallout, I kept thinking about the line Fred Waitzkin delivers in Searching for Bobby Fischer. When his son's teacher disparages chess, Fred says, "[Josh's] better at this than I've ever been at anything in my life. He's better at this than you'll ever be, at anything. My son has a gift. He has a gift, and when you acknowledge that, then maybe we will have something to talk about."

• Online Dating is a Diabolical Machine
• Alyssa Bereznak Feels Wrath of a Million Nerds
• Where Are They Now: Jon Finkel (2009)
• Review of a book written about Finkle's success in MTG and poker
• Finkel's Magic Hall of Fame profile

Better Together Forever

Listening to: Nelson, "Can't Live Without Your Love and Affection." If you don't know what the Nelson twins look like these days, some of the imagery in this video may disturb you. I don't recall anything about their music except that George was really into them. I didn't understand then and I sure as heck don't understand now.

Since two of my favorite people have recently blogged about weddings and plus ones, I thought I'd have to leap in there just to join the virtual pajama party. Lilly's great post and very important Potential Wedding Date Questionnaire is the place to start. And then head over to where Reena talks about the injustice of never receiving a plus one on her invite, and presents us with a sample Checklist of Singles card to be filled out alongside food preferences.

As for me, I'd like to start by rethinking the idea of a plus one. Currently the system is used to give your guests the familiarity and comfort of having someone they know at the wedding. The basic rule of thumb seems to be that if they don't know anyone else, they should get a plus one. Or if they are seriously dating someone, they also get a plus one. At an average of over a hundred dollars a head, this idea is truly crazy.

After extensive research, a quarter of the crowd at a typical wedding are plus ones who usually don't add anything to the festivities. Even worse, having someone chained to your friend essentially makes them less fun. As far as I'm concerned, the plus one is really a negative one. I'm into social mathematics and this just doesn't add up. If you want to smother the joy at your nuptials, just dole out those plus ones in the traditional way. Or you could try something different!

The post-modern wedding should exist for your entertainment and pleasure. Who cares if the guests are comfortable or having a great time? The important thing is that you have who you want at the wedding and not some gathering of people who suck the energy out of the party. Guests should only get plus ones if the person they bring has special skills or is highly participatory and awesome fun.

For example, I once went to a wedding where my friend got a plus five. "That seems excessive" you might say. Basically the reasoning was that my friend had such cool friends that having multiples of them would surely add value to the event. So my friend brought his entourage of talented and beautiful souls and they performed SWV's "Weak" at the reception and provided entertainment for all. If you're going to allow plus anyones at your wedding, make sure they are actually positive assets.

The one time I was a plus one at a wedding, I stepped up to the plate and became the de facto videographer. Someone needed to man the camera and since I really wasn't there for any reason except to accompany my friend -- who was a bridesmaid -- I volunteered my services. Now I don't want to toot my own horn but I think I made my presence felt, if only by providing digital memories for the happy couple. That's the kind of plus one that you want at your wedding. Me!

Some signs that your plus one is really a negative one:

• Their feet hurt and they won't/can't dance.
• They are tired at intermission and want to go back to the hotel room by ten.
• They aren't going to talk much and can't aid you in starting/maintaining/stopping conversations.
• They will cling to you and ruin your entire night by making you take care of them.
• They won't help you zip, locate, or carry things.
• They complain about the hors d'oeuvres. Or complain about anything.
• They are attached to the bar and will be sloshed by cake cutting.
• They are an ex of someone being married that day.

The last one is actually a plus fifty but I think that's just to me because I like melodrama and tension.

Never Together Never

Listening to: The Beatles, "Do You Want to Know a Secret?" A large portion of my Saturday night was spent playing Rock Band: Beatles. My knowledge of the Fab Four is pretty slim but now I realize their genius. This track is now my theme song. Well, I'd prefer if it was named "Do You Want to Tell Me a Secret? Yes You Do," but it's still pretty good like this. I may be sixty years late on Beatles-mania but hey I'm here.

So for a long time, my friend has been insisting that many couples end up together because they look alike. Now I'm no expert on the science of attraction but I thought his observation was bogus. I went through mental snapshots of who my friends ended up with long term and most of them didn't look like one another. Then we started shifting through pictures. Hum. Our other friend, who we think married way out of his league, if you look closely at their features, they do kinda look alike! After a few more such examples, I conceded that there could be some truth to my friend's theory. Plus, casual science backs it up a little because who are we if not narcissistically attracted to someone who kind of looks like our reflections?

Well today I'm reading about this dating website, findyourfacemate.com, that finds you a date based on similar features and now my friend looks like a genius. "The results suggest that the observation of facial resemblance among couples appears to reflect a real phenomenon.... The site won't always match you with people who look like your twin. 'It's not [perfect] symmetry as much as it is shape and structure.'" So for all you singles out there, just keep a sharp eye out for someone who looks kind of like you and then make the move. Unless you're related, in which case, well. That's something they'll have to work out in the algorithm I guess.

Recently Lilly wrote about Singles' Guilt and what that's all about. It's kind of a must read so I'll wait here patiently while you go check it out.

Over the past year or so, some friends who meet my normal group of friends have remarked on how many of us are single. I mean, we're of the age where couples and babies are pretty normal. But my San Francisco friends for example, nine out of ten were single for most of 2010. Not like "unmarried" but single single. And um, with no prospects on any horizon. And out of my main group of friends in San Diego, that ratio is about seven out of ten. Does like attract like? Are we keeping each other in perpetual singledom by hanging out together? Probably.

And yes, I'm excited to keep everyone single till the end of time so we can all still hang out in our dotage. We'll solve one of the great fears of being single in your thirties (being alone in your eighties) by building a commune and having board games every night! Who needs couples and just one lifelong companion when you can have twenty! I'm not sure how my friends feel about my diabolical plan but I'm excited to continue my quest to corner the market on single friends. So if you want to stay perpetually alone and never find your one true love, we should probably be hanging out.

Also, I had no idea what OTP stood for till last week. One True Pairing. Sweet eh?

212s & Heartbeats

Listening to: Theophilus London, "Why Even Try." This track features Sara of Tegan and Sara fame. We're watching Theophilus in concert tonight, after he tapes an appearance on Letterman. I didn't really know anything about him before agreeing to go to the concert; except that his first name is impossible to remember.

From what I can tell, that may soon not be a problem for him because he's got Pharrell/Kanye-lite potential. Apparently London used to be a music journalist, released a mixtape in 2009, and is "the most-connected man in alt-pop." His EP just came out last week, it's called Lovers Holiday.

After the concert, assuming it goes amazing, I could maybe say that I'm finally ahead of the curve on a music act. I mean, Mr. London doesn't even have a Wikipedia yet. I'm gonna be so in the know!

Update: We missed everything but the encore due to bad timing. From what I could tell, Theophilus is better through speakers than live. His Letterman performance confirmed it. Also Theo's dance is a double shuffle with one arm pointed out. You can't call that "my dance", it's just basic aerobics. I still have his tracks on repeat though.

I have the birthdate of an ex-girlfriend tattooed on my left arm. People shake their heads when I tell them what the numbers mean. The cardinal rule of getting tattoos is to never get a significant other's name, etc. embedded on your body. In retrospect, it probably wasn't the wisest move, as that girlfriend and I broke up about a year later. Was I so deep into the relationship that I thought this would last forever when I got it? Not really. We had been only dating for six months or so. But it felt right and I've never regretted it.

When I decided to get the tattoo, I didn't exactly consult her. I basically said, "Hey, I'm getting a tattoo of your birthday." She asked once if I was sure before I announced that I was doing it pretty much either way. In theory it could have been seen as a gesture. A sign that we were clearly going places because of my willingness to etch something in permanent ink. But because I gave her no say, discounting her potential positive or negative opinion, it probably wasn't a gesture on any level. Especially a romantic one.

I called her about an hour before I went into the shop and she arrived as I was paying and thanking my artist. The whole thing took about twenty minutes from smooth start to itchy finish. A few days later, the wound started oozing little droplets from infection.

Having now been in New York for three months -- right around the time when I usually get antsy -- I'm still digging it. The weather has curtailed a few activities but for the most part I'm just as enamored with the city as before. I don't see an end in sight, which is a good thing. I'm still exploring and excited about everything.

A few weeks ago I met a guy who's been more transient than I am. He's been traveling the country, and a bit of the world, with just a rucksack and a guitar. We traded notes on packing light, the constant ebb and flow of friendly faces, and what internal signs usually mark the beginning of our exits. One conversation we didn't have is what we're looking for in a particular place. I think it's because we both understand that you don't find what you're looking for in a physical location. After all, situations change, places change, and people definitely change. What's that axiom? You can't return whence you came?

Actually I butchered that. Google tells me James Baldwin said, "Know from whence you came. If you know whence you came, there are absolutely no limitations to where you can go." That's fitting since I'm headed back to where I came, just for a little bit. Then I'll be back. So let's end with another Baldwin quote: "Love takes off masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within."

No, I have no idea what that means either.

Starting tonight, Watson, a super computer, will be facing off with past Jeopardy champions in a much hyped battle. When I first heard about it, I thought it was a ridiculous ratings grab. Of course Watson would win with its unbeatable reflexes and limitless electronic brain. Where's the suspense? Then I read this article, "Why IBM's Jeopardy-Playing Computer Is So Important," about how the programming challenge was to make the computer figure out what it was looking for amid Jeopardy's "nuance, puns, double entrendres and complex language designed to mislead human contestants." Great point. So I guess the lesson here is that it doesn't matter how intelligent you are if you don't know what you're looking for.

Here is a fan maintained database that has been archiving Jeopardy questions for quite some time. Take a look because it's insanely comprehensive. Can somebody please make this an app already?

Now You See Her, Now You Don't

Listening to: Vampire Weekend, "Taxi Cab." I believe everyone is into Vampire Weekend, and I guess I am now too after two selections in a few weeks. I can't even decide which song I like better, Taxi Cab or Oxford Comma. "Unsentimental, driving around, sure of myself, sure of it now / you stand this close to me, like the future was suppose to be..."

There's probably a better term for this but I'll go ahead and call it the "ghost relationship." My friends and I were sitting around compiling a list of who in our circle we think "most needs to be in a relationship," ranked highest to lowest (this is the kind of stuff we like to do), and the question came up of what to do with "unofficial significant others."

For example, some people don't have a lot of actual relationships but they tend to have a ghost person that fulfills all of those functions. This person could rightly be categorized as a best friend type but there's also the element of attraction -- usually from just one party. The difference between a ghost relationship and say, a friend hookup or a friend with benefits, is that the ghost is there to take care of the person's emotional needs.

Person you call in times of stress? Check. Person you talk to before heading off to bed? Check. Person you call to come over and watch a movie when you just feel like being at home on a Saturday? Check. Keep in mind that these two people aren't in a dating relationship either. To the whole world they are "just friends" but that vague hole a significant other usually occupies is temporarily filled by the ghost relationship.

If you're constantly fending off comments like the ones below, it's a good first sign that you may be in a ghost relationship:

"Are the two of you dating?"
"If you're not dating why do you need to call them back right now?"
"Isn't that a job for the significant other?"
"Would the two of you just do it and get it over with? I'm starving!"

There are different types of ghost relationships of course. Aside from the "emotional needs ghost friend," there's also the kind of ghost that is a relationship in everything but name and Facebook status. Think of everything a typical significant other does: be sweet, be mean, be available, be guilt tripped, be physically intimate, etc. Some people refuse to say that they're going out with someone but if you just take the facts, they totally are.

Basically the rule of thumb for a "ghost" is that it's an emotional hookup. Sustained over a period of time that ghost hookup becomes an entire ghost relationship. And that's when you rise higher in our "most needs to be in a relationship" ranking even if you're not actually in official relationships very often.

Our relationship accounting from here on out will now factor in both real and ghost relationships, in order to evaluate your ranking correctly. Be warned.

I'm a Simple Guy

Listening to: Starfucker, "Girls Just Want to Have Fun." This is a remix by the way, in case you didn't know. I just wanted that to be clear.

You know about OK Cupid right? For years I've been making people take the Dating Persona Test. Go ahead, take it and tell me which one you are. But we're not actually here to discuss that. Instead, let's talk about OK Cupid's blog, OkTrends, which presents dating research pulled from the dating profiles on the site. In the past they've posted about what cameras and phones tend to make you more attractive (or have more sex), they've delved into the lies people tell online dating, and unearthed the optimum message length. In short, you should subscribe to this blog immediately. Well the other day OkTrends did a post on what phrases tend to come up in people's profiles, organized by ethnicity.

I laughed as I read about what white guys liked and nodded along with familiarity. White guys do like Nascar, skiing, and The Big Lebowski. Haha. And of course black girls like Trey Songz and Law & Order. And I suppose Latino men are all amigos and prefer an XBox over a PS3. And of course I've seen many an Asian girl describe herself as "a simple girl" and a foodie. The OkTrends post also has some trending racial stereotypes. My favorite is (paraphrased): "Asian women show off their practicality in the cosmetics department by mentioning lip balm." This was all so true and so funny. I prepared to hit the forward button to all my friends. But then I saw the Asian guys' list...

For weeks/years I thought I thought my profile would shine like Polaris amidst a dark swath of undateables. Surely I must be so cool and interesting that I stood out from all those other Asian men flocking to online dating sites right? As it turns out, I'm just one of many minor constellations, made up of wholly average stars and trite characteristics.

Looking over Stuff Asian Guys Like, I pretty much hit three-fourths of them. Right off the top, I'm from Taiwan. I enjoy pho, noodles, and sashimi. I speak Mandarin and my favorite sport is basketball. I have an alternate Facebook account named after a character from The Rock. I absolutely love Calvin and Hobbes. Yes, I once played tennis in high school. Some of my favorite books and movies include Swingers, Gladiator, and L.A. Confidential. My sister is an accountant. I am pursuing my something in nothing. I have spent the past month addicted to a computer game. I am *sob* into gadgets and usually prefer computers and the Internet to people.

So there it was, not only am I undateable -- my OK Cupid dating persona is "Last Man on Earth," and it hasn't changed since I first took it -- I'm totally and disappointingly a cliche. The only thing I could possibly refute is that I'm neither an engineer nor have much interest in investing. And that goes for physical or emotional things, however my fellow Asian brothers meant it. Other than that I'd say I'm pretty much interchangeable with any average single Asian guy across the way. When they say "there's plenty of fish in the sea," this is what they meant.

The light at the end of the tunnel is that I've been inspired to change my profile to match these keywords on the off chance that someone realizes their ideal person is this exact description. I want to be 100% ready to be their special someone when the time comes. Love is in the air people, love is in the air.

If you scroll down to the very bottom of the study, there's a chart correlating religion and writing proficency level. That's all I'll say about that.

It takes two to make a thing go right

Listening to: Lykke Li, "Dance Dance Dance." Invariably, every time I hear a fantastic and catchy song that tickles the twee in me, it's from a band/singer in Sweden or Norway or somewhere near there. It makes me think I should go take a visit. I also suspect I'm a few years late to the Lykke party according to this Popmatters review.

The other day, I asked the world which sounded worse: cuddling or snuggling. My respondents gave me mixed answers. The general consensus was "both would get you in trouble." Me, I've never heard the term snuggling except used in conjunction with pets, blankets, or now Snuggies. Snuggling thus seems pretty benign. Then again, I feel the same way about cuddling. I don't campaign for much but years ago I thought cuddling should be viewed as a harmless act. Leaving aside that argument for the moment, I've been gifted something wonderful recently.

My friend HT forwarded me these files, titled the "Winter Boo Kit." Take a look, it consists of a job description, an application, and a termination letter. What exactly is a winter boo you ask?

"During the winter months, life starts to slow down and most find themselves comfortable at home in hibernation mode outside of work and special occasions. Because of this, having a winter boo or snuggle buddy is helpful to get through this season of battling the elements. We are looking for hardworking, dedicated candidates that will make this season fun and exciting, making spring and summer feel like it’s right around the corner."

I don't know about your part of the country but San Diego has been freakishly cold recently. Like fifties at night. Brr. Who doesn't need a winter boo to cuddle/snuggle next to in such inclement weather? Please take a look at the files and recognize the genius behind them. And if you're brave enough, you can apply to whoever this Ashley person is. Beware, there's a laundry list of qualifications but as she puts it, "I do offer the opportunity for advancement. Upon outstanding behavior, you may be promoted to boyfriend, fiancé, or even husband if you are lucky."

This leads me logically to our next order of business: dating resumes. Lilly already wrote a post on the topic so here's my short follow up. Basically the point of a dating resume is two-fold. One, nobody really cares what you like to do or what your turn-ons and turn-offs are. Let's get to the point: what can you do for me? That's the real question we have isn't it? How can your unique combination of interests and skills be used to make our dating/relationship lives better? That's what these little dating profiles should be about. But they don't address this issue at all. Instead they focus on similarities, which is useless because dating can be fraught with so many potholes even if you have everything in common. The key is to any successful relationship (working, dating, etc.) is to have defined objectives and realistic expectations. A dating resume will help clarify those items.

The other point of a dating resume is to give the prospective employer a glimpse of the past. While we can't be judged solely on things we've done before -- can I get a hallelujah? -- it is important to have some idea of what someone's gone through. Thus the "Previous Dating Experience" portion of the resume, and especially "References." Longest relationship was seven months over two years ago? Good to know. Had a string of twenty failed dates? What's the reason? If you need a jump off point for this portion of the resume, I refer you to my Relationship Worksheet. Don't knock it till you've tried it.

Another thing that I think would be fun is for your friends to each construct a dating resume. I offered to write up George's but for some strange reason she refused. That's okay, I did my dating resume and after seeing it I'm sure she'll be inspired to make her own. If someone else out there makes one, please show me because I know a lot of prospective employers. And I need the finder's fee.

Singles Conferencing

Listening to: Jets, "Crush on You." I cannot get enough of this song. I just can't. "How did you know / if I never told / you found out / I've got a crush on you!" Plus a live version.

Awhile back, Lilly and I were discussing why it is that we look to our single friends for advice on relationships and dating. We both promised to blog about it and she's done her part so I must hold up my end now. Here's an excellent point she made, "When you take a step back, you suddenly realize that singles advising each other is a truly weird phenomenon. In no other world would a rookie ask another rookie. It's the same reason athletes are coached by guys with championship rings and not some beer-bellied guy in his armchair with Cheetos breath. Everyone has an opinion, sure, but you gotta be smart about whose you take." That's a pretty good point. You don't learn from amateurs in other fields of struggle. You get inspiration and advice from the pros.

I mean, single friends know how to stay single. If they were any good at finding their mates, they'd have paired off or been married by now, right? You couldn't have said that ten years ago when I was still in my early 20s and steady couples were as rare as the sun going round the moon but now, according to Socialistics, 75% of my friends are married, engaged, or in a relationship. That's a frighteningly high number. Yet I rarely turn to them for advice. I still go commiserate with my single friends. And look at where that's led me. So maybe it's time for a strategy switch.

The problem in the past is that there's been this mental divide between those who have found eternal happiness versus those who haven't. For some reason, as soon as someone is happily paired up, they are written off as non-useful members of (single) society. In the world of the lonely, these people turn into anecdotes instead of success stories. "Joan and Kevin have gone out since high school and never had a fight!" Or, "My friend met his girlfriend online and they dated for three months. Now they're getting married in Bermuda. I'm looking for a plus one to the wedding, interested?"

There's a tinge of "It happened to them but that's not the way it'll happen for me" when we pass around these stories. Like they were one shot wonders. Rarely do we try to analyze the commonalities of highly successful relationshippers and then apply those lessons to our own lives. We're more likely to scoff than anything else. We add a "but" to a lot of these anecdotes. "But I didn't have a high school sweetheart. And online dating has only resulted in recurring credit card charges..."

Or maybe girls think differently than guys. Girls might be inspired by stories from successful couples but we don't. (Is that generalization even true?) Single guys hear about someone dating and wonder, "Wait, how in the world can this dude have a girlfriend and not me?" This happens all the time. After all, tons of our loser friends we thought never could have landed a significant other have done so successfully, so we've long given up the idea that being a good guy equals finding a good girl.

I personally know lots of guy friends who have landed amazing girls way out of their league in every respect. These tales don't serve as inspirations, they serve as signs that the universe doesn't play fair. So we're a bit more skeptical about the whole process maybe. We aren't looking for stories to inspire, we're looking for our chance at upsetting the odds. Plus we can still kind of hang onto the idea that the married man secretly envies his single friends. After all, a man down is a man down, regardless of how wide his smile is.

But again, huddling up and circling the wagons with our fellow singles has clearly not gotten us anywhere. If you want to become a pro, you gotta think like a pro. So from now on I turn to my married friends for advice. I will ask them, "What do you think has contributed to your happiness and tell me the story of how you met." And when they tell me I will dutifully take a lot of notes, create circle and bar graphs, and try to plot out all the intricate dance steps that result in a successful relationship.

Here's the thing though. In turning to the pros for advice, you have to admit to one fundamental fact: "I've been doing it wrong, I need to learn how to do it right." Singles can talk to singles all day long because on some level you know that both of you have been making some sort of mistake. It's two amateurs talking to each other. But when you talk to the marrieds or to the happily togethers, you are walking in with you head bowed low and with the idea that "Hey, you did something better than I could, please help me."

Now I know it's not as dramatic as all that, but maybe that's part of the reason the singles and the not-singles have avoided each other for so long. But no longer. I will now model myself after only people who have tread the path of success before me. Those lost souls I was traveling and going around in circles with? It's been nice chatting with you and I'll leave some breadcrumbs behind me but talk to you later!

Talk to Her

Listening to: Frente!, "Bizarre Love Triangle." Apparently a cover but hey, I didn't listen to New Order so this is pretty much the original for me.

So I've been watching a lot of romance movies recently and noticed a really annoying thing. The moment when two people are falling in love is always inevitably done via musical montage. Four minutes of quick cuts and some bouncy indie song. This has been happening all over the place and I find the trend disturbing. For one, I like conversations that lead to liking and romance. For two, nobody falls in love like this. It's cute but so so fake.

I watched Manhattan for the first time and realized how much I missed love dialogue. Like it was five in the morning when we started the movie and I couldn't stop even though I was dead tired. Woody Allen and Diane Keaton shared a moment in the museum that could have had some music jammed in but because I got to hear their banter beforehand, it felt more like a moment. And lo and behold, no cutesy montage.

Compared to the other stuff I've been watching, their attraction felt real and honest. Like they'd earned it. With these other movies, it's sort of a generic running around some city streets, eating and laughing, a sunset (or sunrise) in the distance, and you end up not really understanding why these people like each other. Usually I'm like "Wait, they just hung out, they connected for three seconds, cued the music, and now they're destined for each other? What did I just miss? I cry bullshit! These people are not in love, they just have good editing and a must buy soundtrack."

Of course, I shouldn't be too harsh because writing dialogue that shows how two people could conceivably fall for each other in an exact moment must be terribly difficult. Some screenwriters have successfully done it but it's probably safer to go with the non-conversation. If you write a lame conversation you'd probably lose your audience pretty fast too. But think of all the amazing lines we would have missed out on in movie history if everyone had been lazy and just music-ed everything. ".....I think I'd miss you even if we'd never met."

The nice (and challenging) part of writing/reading a fall in love scene is that you can't skip over the talking. You need to use dialogue and action. There's no "they hung out for a day and then fell for each other." You have to show it, you have to prove it. I can't say I've ever written an amazing fall in love scene (yet), but when I do, I want it to stand alone. I don't want any actions or verbal cues, just straight talk. And if somehow that isn't realistic or convincing, then I've failed terribly.

Actually the counterpoint to my annoyance is that maybe the modern day montage more accurately depicts the first few moments of "oh man I like this person feeling" because really, no matter what they say, you'll probably like them anyway, right? Maybe this is the statement the montages are meant to make. When you first like someone, maybe you're only looking at their eyes or their lips, your brain isn't comprehending much of anything they're saying, and you're really just lost in the clouds. Why not use some music to approximate that feeling?

So a day at the zoo isn't about the conversation you have walking around and getting to know each other. It's really about sort of mumbling a few things, looking at each other from different angles, doing a few closeups of smiles and happy eyes, and then boom, connection. Track that out to a song and there you have it, l-o-v-e.

If that's the case, I better start carrying a boombox around with me, for those moments when I need to generate some mutual attraction. I'd get ready to hit play on the Frente! song. Well, maybe something more upbeat. And then I'd grab her hand and run somewhere. Anywhere.

Midas' Cupid

"No evolutionary biologist will ever tell you that humans have evolved to mate for life. Lately some of them will tell you that humans have evolved to pair-bond for four-year increments (about as long as it takes to get a child up and running), which seems about right. This information is not particularly hard to come by. But a weird thing about the show [Millionaire Matchmaker], and about American culture in general, is that we are so eager to hear and believe scientific and pseudoscientific explanations of why people "fall in love," but then we cover our ears and hum so that we don't hear the end of the sentence, which is about why people fall out."
-Emily Gould, Qualify Your Buyer-

A Love Lost

"For most of us love is largely a matter of shared mortgage payments, evenings curled up on the couch in front of a video, or maybe a night in a hotel for an anniversary. But Cristina Nehring has a different idea. Her ardent polemic, 'A Vindication of Love,' puts forward a darker, more demanding vision of love. This is not, it should be said right away, a book without ambition: the subtitle is 'Reclaiming Romance for the Twenty-First Century,' though it is not exactly romance Nehring is writing about, but a more difficult, vital image of passion she believes we have lost.

.....

Nehring sees in the grandeur of feeling a kind of heroism, even if the relationship doesn't take conventional form or endure in the conventional way. For Nehring, one senses, true failure is to drift comfortably along in a dull relationship, to spend precious years of life in a marriage that is not exciting or satisfying, to live cautiously, responsibly. Is the strength of feeling redeemed in the blaze of passion even if it does not end happily? she asks. Is contentment too soft and modest a goal?"
-Feverish Liaisons, New York Times book review-

Forever Young

"Who's your unicorn?" my friend asked. I had no idea what he was talking about but I loved it already. I mean, "unicorn" is my stock answer for everything. Catchphrase answers, Win Lose or Draw guesses, chaotic basketball plays, trivia shots in the dark, anything. When in doubt, say "unicorn!" with emphasis. Works for me.

But what my friend was asking about was who my romantic unicorn was. Under his particular definition, your romantic unicorn is that guy/girl you idealize and chase but won't (ever) get. I mean, okay, maybe you get her, but most likely not. Recently we just had a pair of friends in town and they were each other's unicorns and now they're happily married. That's like just too rare an occurrence to even throw into the theory though. When two people have essentially loved each other since high school and waited for each other, that's not something you should lump into anything else except to call it by their own names.

Anyway, another way to rephrase the unicorn question is "Who's your Winnie Cooper?" That will immediately illuminate what you're driving at when you say it to someone from that era. Everyone knows who their Winnie Cooper is. The person within your sphere of life, one who you might even interact with regularly, but is always out of touch and unattainable. It's supposed to be painful a bit.

I think having someone be your unicorn implies that you hold them on a pedestal. And you need to feel inferior (at least initially) so that you think to yourself, "They're so awesome, why would they even like me?" And if you ever got that unicorn, if you had her in your life for just enough time, she would solve all your problems.

Also, I think there should only be one unicorn per person. I mean, that just makes sense. You can't have a lot of them, otherwise they're just big ass crushes or unrequited loves. Boring.

Here's the thing actually. In asking this question, people have interpreted it differently. I initially thought my friend was asking me who/what my ideal was. I mean, that was where my brain naturally took the idea of a unicorn. A mythological creature that may or may not exist, and only shows himself to the purest of the pure, equated in my mind with your ideal romantic partner.

But it was more interesting to talk about a unicorn as per my friend's definition. With the parameters being someone who actually exists, someone that you maybe had a way outside chance with, and someone that you'll always hold in your heart just a little bit. Or maybe it can also be seen as the one that got away. You saw the unicorn once in the forest and now you always keep an eye out for him but to no avail.

So, upon further review, I think it's important to let anyone set up the parameters for what their unicorn is, since it's kind of an individual thing right? Think about who your unicorn is and then tell me all about it.

Totally unrelated but look at this zebra-corn. I want one of these.

Serenity Now

Oh happiness, how difficult a target you present. It's a toss up who has the worse aim, Cupid or whichever cherub is in charge of ensuring joy for all (Mickey Mouse?). Well, there's some human help out there. Tina is the Chief Happiness Officer (CHO) of Think Simple Now and her goal is to bring fulfillment and happiness into your life. Exciting hunh? I tend to roll my eyes at anything that remotely resembles self-help but I'm addicted to Tina's blog. She mixes in personal stories, success methods, and an inquisitive and conversational tone that just draws me in.

Tina tackles and examines lots of fun topics like "How to Find True Love," "The Popularity Factor," and "15 Questions to Discover Your Personal Mission." Her archives are full of interesting things to talk about on a lazy Sunday, before coming to the conclusion that (a) your life is great (b) your life sucks or (c) another mimosa?

Below is an excerpt from her journal about insecurities in relationships, something I'm sure we all contend with. I mean, you do, don't you?

"Through much realization about myself in the past few days, I discovered that I used to have a psychological dependency on men, or the idea of having a man there for me.

In the most extreme sense, it was as if my entire self worth relied on this dependency, on this idea of support. Once that dependency is challenged and uncertainty is added into the equation, I become this insecure little girl, unable to continue. I scramble, I panic, I look for plan B, I start to seek out alternatives, replacements... pads to protect my body from shattering into little pieces should I fall from that balcony of visions that I’ve created.

Visions and fixation, of hope, of ideals, of situations, of longing... all of which I have projected onto this man who is the current holder of my self-worth and whom I’ve depended on such that I cannot function normally without. He helps me to feel together, to feel complete. But he also hinders me from achieving my ultimate goals.

In a deeply unconscious state, without knowing it, I’ve asked him to put an invisible leash on my self-worth and my security. As a result, he’s got all of my time, my attention, my heart, and my love and a momentary pause has been placed on my true passions."
-My Insecurities: A Slice From My Diary-

Everyone Else and You

I've been buzzing about this thing for about a week now. Touch Graph is an application for Facebook that shows you how your friends are connected and interconnected visually. I know, I know, another Facebook app, blah blah blah. But this one is seriously cool and kind of useful. At least for me.

Awhile back, Lilly and I had this idea to create a Friend Web that you could carry around with you. It shows who your friends are, how they're connected, and what friend grouping they're in. It cuts down a lot on the "wait, who are we talking about again?" It was also a great idea for parents to know exactly who their kids' friends were. Well, Facebook neatly solved this problem because if you have an Internet capable computer/friend, you could just show people online. But, even then, the missing ingredient was a visual depiction of your friends and how they were related. Hello Touch Graph! We've been waiting for you!

Here's how Touch Graph works. By leveraging the connections that are already embedded in your Facebook information, the program comes up with a giant relational web of your friends. Those who have lots of connections to you and other people in your web are closer to the center. Those with fewer connections are further. Simple right? Keep in mind this doesn't mean those closer to you are your "better" friends, it just shows connectivity.

When you make your friend graph, you can adjust the settings to show however many friends you want. I'd suggest cranking it as high as possible for the best view. I tried smaller sample sizes but it wasn't as interesting. So once you crank your selection pool to the max, all of your friends are ranked, generally in order of how many connections they have to your other friends. But higher ranks are given to friends who are connectors between different cliques. They call this "Betweenness Centrality," which is a metric to measure a person's importance within a social network. Here's a cool article and explanation about that here.

So what's a clique? Different colors are used to show clusters and cliques. All your friends in a particular color are probably friends with each other, but not connected to other people outside of that group. It's really accurate and works quite well. I mean, the colors definitely showed my various cliques of friends, people who were "one-offs (unconnected to anybody except me)," and revealed all sorts of interesting information. You can also choose to organize your friend web by location, thus finding out how many people are in San Diego or New York, for example.

When you switch to pyramid view, it shows you by semi-tiers who's the most important people in your social network. Like who's connected to the most people, or who's the gateway friend for your other friends. This is freaking fascinating isn't it? It's probably not anything you didn't already know about your own friends, but for someone else to look at your graph, it really gives them an idea of your social worlds.

I'm just happy I finally found a good personal use for Facebook. All this time I've been doing it because everyone else in the world does it, but all those hours wasted on it has been repaid by the wonder that is Touch Graph.

What I'd like to see is someone's graph with two or three large dominant cliques. I tend to want to mix as many of my friends together as possible and I really only have one big group of all muxed up friends. When I visit you next, I want to see your Friend Web, thanks. For my settings under "Advanced" I used: Min User Photo (1), Min Edge Photo (0), and Min Network User (5)

While I'm at it. This other Facebook app is interesting too. It's called Socialistics and digs up demographic dirt on your friends in graph format. It's still got a lot of work needed but I was able to find out, for example, that 42% of my (Facebook) friends are married, 14% are engaged, 20% in a relationship, and 21% single. Also, only 11% of my friends are my age, with 56% of my friends being 26-28 years old. Once this thing can tell me how many friends younger than me are married/engaged, then I'll really know how far behind I am. Can't wait!

I'll Be There for You

You know me, I love lists, categories, and anything that involves names and rankings. Well, here's a project I've been working on for some time. Ever since seeing this NBA Archetype Hierarchy [ Image  ], I've been wondering how such a model could apply to friendships.

Even if you don't know much about basketball, it can help to take a look and see how it's set up. There are five tiers, each containing a certain archetype coveted -- or not coveted -- by NBA teams. As you can see, the top tier is an elite point guard or a refined big man. Think Chris Paul and Shaquille O'Neal, respectively. Traditionally, finding a true superstar at either position will set your franchise up for success if you can surround them with the appropriate complementary parts. (Ignore the blue dot that is Lebron James; he's a freak and doesn't really fit into any archetype.) Basically, the NBA Archetype Hierarchy defines the types of players that are available and then orders which ones are more valuable -- and also harder to acquire.

Using those guidelines, I thought it'd be fun to construct a friendship archetype hierarchy. Personally, I've always maintained a strict rule of fives for my friendship pyramids. Five tiers ranging from super close friends to acquaintances. Five "best" friends. Five important people to fill communication routines (in person, phone call, email, text, AIM). I've always tossed around the idea of a hierarchy, we all do, I'm sure. What I haven't done is come up with archetypes, or roles, that my friends fulfill. Well, now I have.

Introducing my Friendship Archetype Hierarchy. Keep in mind that by definition, this would have to be individualized for each person. Mine won't look like yours and vice versa. It's impossible, there is no generic template. Some people have a bigger tier three than a tier two. Some people have a ton of super close friends, some people have a few. It's all dependent on what kind of person you are and how you've structured your social circle.

The point of such an exercise is to figure out what sorts of roles, and support systems, you need in your life. I mean, sometimes when you think something is missing (friendship wise), you can't figure out what it is exactly. You miss a specific person maybe but at the same time, what you're also missing is someone to fill their niche. Not to say that people are replaceable, because they're not, but having a broad view of the sorts of niches you require for maximum happiness should illuminate something about yourself.

I mean, if friends are a huge part of filling up our happiness meter, shouldn't they deserve just as much thought and study as our careers, relationships, and families? After all, friends contribute heavily to our hierarchy of needs don't they?

Lest you think that such an exercise is frivolous and entirely narcissistic, there's a lot of ramifications for figuring out how to create friend hierarchies. Think about the current state of social networking. You may have 300 Facebook friends but wouldn't it be nice for the program to somehow differentiate between tiers? I mean, Facebook gives you a few options to do that (by changing your privacy settings) but someday soon, social networking sites will start to group your friends automatically.

"Current social networks differ from reality on where action is required: In the real world, friendships fade because of inaction: He slowly stops calling and emailing as much, you don't think to invite him to your party. No one is to blame, it happens all the time.

But in the current online world, friendships can only end by action. Someone has to make the decision to actively de-friend the other. This feels intuitively slimy, and it's a waste of effort and attention on someone who by definition you aren't concerned with."
-Friend Decay: Social Networks need passive un-friending-

Also, this blog post from Adaptive Blue talks about a "hierarchy around friendships built on trust across verticals and subject matters: I trust this person on subject matter X, and this person on subject matter Y even though the network might trust Z." That's such an awesome point. There are broad tiers but then entirely different categories and networks.

The online catch all term "friend" will soon be spliced apart into its component parts, just like we do in the real world. That's the next step for social networking sites, once they can figure out how to get around the (admittedly thorny) problem of offending people who think they're closer to someone than they are. I mean, think of the fights that people already had over their MySpace Top Eight and multiply it. Whew, that's not going to be a fun feature to implement. But it'll be more honest, and revealing, wouldn't it?

One of the key phrases that gets thrown around is "trust relationships." Fundamentally, social networking is a great idea but currently it's too invasive and broad for some people. We want to have something that allows us to maintain our trust circles while remaining open to the possibility of staying in touch with random people. It's a very hard tightrope to walk. If you go too exclusive, you get Facebook in the earlier days, and not enough users. If you get too inclusive, you get the cluster fuck that is MySpace. Will Facebook find the answer? Will something new?

I hope somebody hires me to think about the dynamics of friendship all day long. Or maybe I should have studied this in school instead of whatever the hell I ended up studying...

The Book of Revelation: Vol.1

Recently, I had a conversation with someone about how she's no longer accepting applications for guy friends. It's either dating (toward a relationship) or nothing. While this may sound a bit draconian, she had a great point. Her friend archetypes are busting at the seams with platonic guy friends; males who are kind of flirty and maybe might make a move while drunk; and gray area friends who have a lot of potential and semi-chemistry but need some time to figure it all out, etc.

As a prudent woman of the recession, she realized that she's filled to the brim with platonic guy friends and has decided to shut down shop. After all, what can one new guy friend do for her that the other twenty five oldies-but-goodies can't? Nothing really. She has her guy friend to chat with on the phone. She has the one to talk about movies and books with. She has the one she calls for computer help. She has her running buddy. She's got a handful of party guys. She's got it all. More guy friends are always nice, but are they necessary?

The answer is "No," unless they are absolutely freaking A-plus amazing. And if they are absolutely freaking A-plus amazing, it's probably worth it to give them a quick date, just to see if there's maybe a spark there. Think about it. If you meet an amazing person now, doesn't your mind already go "Um, could I date this person?" Of course it does. And if it doesn't, you're a liar.

See, this is the logical extension of our increased age and maturity. We need to stop living our lives like it's our early twenties. It's not anymore. Hello, I'm in my early thirties. Nobody has time to waste anymore "waiting it out," seeing if weeds will blossom into flowers, or whatever analogy you want to use. Time is a valuable resource and if we're not using it in a goal orientated way, it's lost. Forever. I'll repeat that: Forever.

Ten years ago, you could sit around and take a few months to build a bond and then maybe lose that bond due to circumstance or lack of interest, no harm done. Now, those months could be spent nurturing your current stable of friends, interacting with the people you already know are supremely valuable and really want to spend time with.

I mean, think of it like this. When you were younger, wouldn't you go into a dinner party and maybe make an effort to meet new people, to try to engage everyone, just give it all a chance? Nowadays it's hardly rude to just go in, hang out with the three friends you came with, and then pick up and leave knowing that you're not likely to meet any of those people ever again. And that's okay because we are now more discerning and focused about who we choose to let into our lives.

Some might contend that it's best to be friends before dating. Hogwash I say. With our shortened time line in relationships, it's a wonder we conceive of any amount of time as being sufficient to find out if he/she is the right one. These days, once you've been seriously dating someone for over a year, those wedding bells will start tolling, even if it's just your phone ringer set to silent and vibrate because your parents won't stop calling to innocently ask, "How are things?!"

If you are in my age group, and especially if you're a girl, we no longer have the luxury of going though a three or four year relationship to find out if this person is The One. We're too jaded, we're too wary, and we're too damn positive that shit can always happen -- even when it seems like shit could never, ever, ever happen. We're not cynical, we're just experienced. We've had our eyes opened, we've seen too much, and we've gotten used to the impossible, for good and for bad.

I mean, really, what will you know about a person as a romantic prospect after being friends with them for a few months that you couldn't find out in six weeks of dating them? Probably nothing. And to be completely honest, it's a near fallacy to assume that the person you bought into as a friend is the same person you'll date. People have their friendship side and their relationship side. It's best to just get in there and figure out what's what before any more time is wasted. The truth must be freed and in romance it can only be freed if you shed the shackles of friendship. That's the current theory anyway.

I'm just extremely thankful that I made it before my friend's platonic cut off date. Yah, I'm in, I'm in!

Sitting in the Tree

"My college students are romance-starved. Some of you may be asking, What has this to do with my students who are in middle or high school? I know this leap is unscientific, but I'm making it anyway: by the time your former students are midway through college and sitting in my classroom, many (dare I say most?) are tired of sex, sex, sex. They're empty, spent, and longing for seriously chaste, old-fashioned romance -- we're talking stargazing and hand-holding, the end -- and they have no idea how to find it. So now is the perfect time to introduce your students to sweet, innocent-yet-sexy romance novels. That way, when they get older, they'll have narrative models to show them how to make simple, romantic gestures (like asking someone out or setting up a first kiss), and they won't end up having a sex-life crisis in college.

Writing a kissing scene is hard. Writing a good kissing scene (or, for that matter, any romantic encounter) is even more difficult. When I was working on my first novel, somewhere in the back of my mind I knew that eventually I would have to write a kissing scene. This was a daunting thought. I blush even now just remembering that I actually wrote one! I think I may have typed it with one hand screening my eyes (you know, like, when you get embarrassed and can't stand to watch). Therefore, I stand in great admiration of any writer who can pull off a romantic scene with flair and ease."
-Donna Freitas, Be Still My Heart: A Shameless Guide to Sweet, Sexy Romance Novels for Teens and Tweens-

Don't be alone, it might suck

I have bad news for you/us unmarried people. A recent article I read is titled "Together is better? Effects of relationship status and resources on young adults' well-being." It's from the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships (possibly my new favorite site/magazine if I can somehow subscribe) and it says that married is better than single. I know, totally revelationary. How'd they come to this stunning conclusion? Allow me to summarize. First, a quote from the beginning of the piece.

"Marital status has long been viewed as an important marker with respect to several measures of well-being. For a variety of reasons, married people tend to have fewer psychological problems, are healthier, and more satisfied with life than the non-married.

The proliferation of alternative living arrangements (e.g., unmarried cohabitation, living apart together, or long term relationship without cohabitation) and the increase in divorce rates have blurred the once clear-cut distinction between married and unmarried adults. Marital status is still used as an indicator of people's relational involvement, although as [a researcher] suggested, this indicator may be inadequate to capture the effects of romantic relationships on subjective well-being in modern societies.

The ambiguity of marital status is particularly apparent for young adults, because young adulthood is 'a demographically dense period'. Young adulthood is a period of life when many transitions occur in a relatively short time span. In addition, given that forming romantic relationships is a primary developmental task, it is a period in which relational experimentation is widespread. Therefore, there is great diversity in relationship types among young adults, particularly in dating and unmarried cohabitation."
-Together is better?-

Through the course of the paper, it's revealed that single people are at the lowest rung of well-being because they don't have as many resources as those who are dating, cohabiting, or married. First, let's talk about what those resources are. There are three broad categories: material, social, and personal. Material resources are things like possessions, income, education, and employment. Basically we're talking money and the things that money can buy. Or resources that will allow you to get more money, such as education. Or quick hands and low morals.

Personal resources include things like self-esteem, optimism, or neuroticism. I've been looking for a definition of neuroticism and theirs is quite good: "Neuroticism can be considered as the lack of the resource of emotional stability." People with low neuroticism are better able to cope with stress and are less negative in general. Thus, personal resources are basically things that allow you to cope with stress and deal with how unfair life is. Neuroticism was measured with the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. I was too impatient to sit through all the questions so I have no idea what my results were. I probably got a C-, probably.

The last resource, social, can be simply explained by measuring a person's social web and social support network. It also includes anything that helps achieve "valued outcomes" in social situations. So if you want to be well liked, social resources can help you do that. Or help you be vilified if that's what you desire. Furthermore, there are two sub-scales for this: emotional support and instrumental support. "Emotional support taps the exchange of emotions of trust, acceptance, love, care, and empathy. Instrumental support focuses on tangible forms of support, like assistance with odd jobs."

With all that laid out, the initial hypothesis and resulting conclusion matched: Single people are sad sad people. See, it's all math. Two is better than one. More material, more personal, and more social resources are had when two people join up. The greater your access to these resources, the better off you'll be. In addition, a partner provides resources that are hard to provide for yourself. Yes, we're talking about sex. But also love and intimacy. You can love yourself but apparently that's not the same thing. After reading through the paper even I was halfway convinced marriage was the answer.

But then I got to thinking. In your previous relationships, has simply combining resources with someone actually made your life better? I mean, things like self-esteem, stress, and social circles can all be negatively affected in a relationship right? Where's the scale that measures the positive or negative effects of being in a relationship or being married. Currently my single friends are pretty evenly divided between the "I'm so happy I'm single" and "I'm depressed, I need someone" camps. The former group generally feels free and unattached, the latter group feels lonely. Clearly, the beauty of singledom is in the eye of the beholder.

While I don't want to discount the research done here, I'm philosophically opposed to its conclusion. Married isn't always better. Maybe for most people it is but some people don't necessarily want to get married. It could be possible to duplicate all of these positive resources in a single lifestyle by strategic use of friends and family right? I'd imagine that the longer someone is single, the more they build a network that provides them with resource sharing. But then again, as my mom likes to remind me, "What happens when all your friends are gone?" Um, I don't know. Buy some more? "With what material resources?" Hum, good point...

What I do like about this study is that it organizes some basic relationship needs into a simple triangle. By thinking about which of these resources you value, which ones you have an abundance of, or which ones you'd like in return, it could help you identify what your current (or future) dating life should be. I mean, I've never cohesively thought about whether or not I'm providing these resources to my partner. If I did, maybe I wouldn't fail so often? So while I must object to the "marriage is better" conclusion, I will take the study to heart and use its framework to find some answers.

Notice that the title of the study includes the phrase "young adult." That's key because this is a study that focused on young people, just like you and me. This was also done in the Netherlands and maybe those enlightened Dutch have different viewpoints than us ("The Dutch culture is rather individualistic and tolerant towards cohabitation.") so that could be a factor. Actually, the article goes through lots of moderating effects and possible flaws and exceptions but I'll gloss over those here. If you're really interested, email me and I'll forward you a copy of the thing for your own reading pleasure. But wouldn't you be better off using that reading time to hit the streets and finding that lucky someone to get married to? Happy happy joy joy...

This paper was provided to me by a friend who is in grad school and working on her fascinating thesis. I can't even talk about it because it's something so top secret and exciting that I don't want to blow up her spot. Let's just say that it's on a topic I'm very intrigued by. I can't wait till it's done. Until then, I hope to keep getting fed this sort of thing. I'll conclude with a few quotes I've recently come across. They kind of say the same thing but from opposite viewpoints.

"Girls aren't cool. They can be pretty or 'cute,' and with some serious dieting, even sexy. They can be nice. Dumb, but nice. But who wants 'nice'? You want interesting people around you. Has a girl ever introduced you to any new music or recommended a book you didn't already read in high school? Anything just slightly outside the mainstream? If so, she got it from an ex, her brother, her father. They just pretend.

Guys in long term relationships become so lame. They get sucked into this feminine sphere of TV series and nice dinners. They get less and less time to read and listen to music. Eventually they don't even miss it. They end up as understimulated, bourgeois retards."
-Reprise-

"I think marriage is an insurance for the worst years of your life. During your best years you don't need a husband. You do need a man of course every step of the way, and they often are cheaper emotionally and a lot more fun by the dozen."
-Sex and the Single Girl-

Thump

"I never had any wild crush on her, and that used to worry me about the long-term future: I used to think -- and given the way we ended up, maybe I still do -- that all relationships need the kind of violent shove that a crush brings, just to get you started and to push you over the humps. And then, when the energy from that shove has gone and you come to something approaching a halt, you have a look around see what you've got. It could be something completely different, it could be something roughly the same, but gentler and calmer, or it could be nothing at all."
-Nick Hornby, High Fidelity-

Eros

Earlier this year I introduced the the world to the life timeline. Its purpose was for remembering, analyzing, and just using the power of Excel to get some perspective on your life. Well, it's nearing the end of 2008 and I'm ready to drop another life spreadsheet on you. Introducing the Relationship Worksheet. The idea behind it is dead simple. By now, if you are around my age, you've probably had a few relationships under your belt. If you're exactly me, shit's gone wrong, patterns have emerged, issues have been fixed, then unfixed, and hopefully fixed again, but you're just lacking that overall big picture view. By taking just a few minutes I can solve this problem for you.

Open up a spreadsheet, use the template, and plug in your own answers. Then go take a break and return with fresh eyes. Take a look at your relationship worksheet. Notice any patterns? Do you always date emotionally withdrawn people? There it is, plain as day. Are all your relationships just long enough to last through a full calendar year? Afraid of commitment buddy, just admit it. Do you need to stop dating the nice, sweet, but ultimately boring guy? Been there, done that. Should you try dating older? Um, maybe.

Feel free to drop in some new rows with anything you feel might be relevant. Possibilities can range from things like "Did my friends approve?" to "Did we say 'I love you?'" Use your imagination and tell me if you hit on anything super crucial that should be part of the standard template. You don't even have to constrain this to honest to goodness relationships. Include some semi-serious dates, flings, grey areas, etc. I can't help you define exactly what a "relationship" is but maybe by putting everything down you'll figure it out yourself.

Another huge side benefit of this thing is that it makes it much easier to talk about relationships with your friends. I mean, I've recently completed this with a friend and now we have a fuller picture of each other's relationship histories and we can commence haterade-ing by talking about specifics. No more "Wait, which one was that again? When did you date? And for how long?" Cut that bullshit out and just refer to the spreadsheet. Use your valuable time deconstructing the failed relationship, not constantly rehashing the statistics of it.

I know, freaking genius, someone give me an award. Or just send me your worksheet so we can talk about it.

If you want to get real serious, I've seen this around in bookstores and always sort of want to pick it up: "Love Listography: Your Love Life in Lists." Who doesn't love lists?!