In a Rule-breaking discussion with me about The Rules, that dearest of dear creatures Seraphic suggested to me that since I was sceptical about them, perhaps I should blog about why. I instead suggested that, ill-equipped though I may be for such a delicate task, I might try to come up with better courtship advice for men, and this she thought worth a try (or a laugh).
In an attempt to forestall the perfectly understandable snorts of derision from my readers ( “What the bally-flip does BA know about courting women, eh? B.A.!”) I offer the observation that past gaffes often bring with them the conciliatory wisdom of hindsight—and moreover, I have recently been rather luckier on the romantic front than any man has a right to hope for. So there. And anyway, a chap’s got to blog about something. [Cry from the cheap-seats: “Oh no he doesn’t!”]
Given the utility of the virtue of modesty to love, life and letters, I propose to begin with but one McRule, but it’s a biggie:
1. Be Yourself
Hardly original, I grant you, but that just underscores this rule’s importance. Yes, really.
Being yourself means letting your genuine character be what the world (and the woman whose affections you’d win) sees. Don’t assume a persona, or conceal essential parts of your own personality or life circumstances, in order better to appeal to woman. Heaven knows, there are plenty things about the-man-who-is-Benedict-Ambrose which have always seemed unlikely to him to appeal to women, but trying to conceal them has always failed on multiple levels. Core values, character traits and life-history are things that, after a certain (fairly early) stage in a chap’s life, he is unlikely to change, and dissembling about them carries with it all the usual problems about lies, and is quite literally self-defeating into the bargain. Even if you manage to pull this shape-changing trick off, you will have won her only by deception and at the cost of your own integrity. Impersonating someone else (which is effectively what this sort of gambit amounts to) for the sake of gaining the admiration or love of another is not just deceptive—it’s also got a short-to-medium-term chance of success at the very most. Truly, who can carry that kind of long-term denial of themselves off, without some catastrophic failure at some level or other? If you would be truly loved by a woman (and there are few more heart-gladdening fates than to be loved by a truly good woman), you must let yourself be loved. What availeth it a man if he gain a woman’s love but lose his own soul, eh?
Only, and here’s the rub, be the very best version of yourself that you can possibly muster. That, I think, best celebrates and increases a proper self-respect and respect for the other person. If there are aspects of your character or life-circumstances that you really ought to be working on anyway—perhaps you’re addicted to filthy literature (the poerty of Pam Ayres, say) or spend too much time on t’internet reading toshy blog-posts about “being yourself”—let the fact that it will make you more worthy of another’s love help you to change them. And try to make good progress on that before getting too involved with a lovely gal.
Do not, however, use some poor woman to “save” you from yourself—instead, make yourself more deserving of her first. If your life or character is such a mess that it needs urgently sorting out, try to sort it out without involving “her” in the mess first. It’s hardly fair to ask someone to be your personal saviour by becoming your (prospective) wife. Unfair burden altogether, old chap, innit. If you fail to win her despite the effort of making yourself worthy of her, you have lost only what you could not have kept anyway, and you’ll be all the more ready to woo someone else now you’ve got yourself in Bristol-fashion.
Also, resist the temptation to fall a certain type of women because you know they will not challenge the aspects of yourself that you really know you ought to change. Don’t date for convenience. If you do, you not only show her a lack of respect, but let yourself down rather badly into the bargain. You will also be “settling” for less than you know you need, and you are unlikely to keep a healthy respect for such a woman.
“Only date women you can truly respect” will be a subsequent McRule, so keep tuned in now, chaps.
November 2, 2008 at 12:15 am
Wow, this is v. important. I have, unfortunately, dated men who have told me what they thought I wanted to hear. Later, of course, when the truth is discovered it is a big ol’ mess I can tell you. And sometimes the truth is not that bad if they had only been truthful from the start! The fact that they lied though leaves a mark on ones heart which is hard to put aside.
Maybe another rule should be – don’t lie, but don’t be unkind either.
Just a thought from the very single girl accross the pond.
November 2, 2008 at 10:20 am
And a good one at that, Aussiegirl—thank you.
Dishonesty, of any sort, is a singularly bad start to any relationship. Even well-meaning lies (if they are serious enough) have a horribly corrosive effect on trust, and without trust you haven’t really got a relationship at all, merely an arrangement.
B(achelor’s) A(untie)
November 3, 2008 at 6:30 pm
A new McRule, please. I want to hear all about those women you can truly respect.
November 3, 2008 at 8:46 pm
What a delightfully demanding task-mistress. How can I fail to comply?
November 4, 2008 at 10:02 pm
You, from all internet appearances, seem to rock! I’m glad for you and Seraphic! I like this rule much better and I think it should be for men and women. 🙂
November 5, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Och, Alisha, you’re very kind to say so. Thank you!
B(ows) A(lisha-ward)
November 5, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Bravo!
I have seen gents in my circle make those last two mistakes often. Either looking to Eve to answer their deepest question or running from a good woman to one who just lavishes praise and offers no true challenges.
I so love following the two of you. 😉 You are both an inspiration and wonderful role models!
Question for you: how do you characterize the healing power of a good man in a good relationship with a good woman when both or one are hurt from past relationships? Have been discussing this with a friend and am in the midst of drafting my own blog post. Do you think that would be an instance of “saving”?
November 5, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Thank you, Mikaela!
I’m all for healing relationships, myself. If by restoring someone’s faith in themselves as a truly loveable (and actually loved) creature-wrought-in-God’s-image a person’s lover (we’ve decided to rehabilitate that much-abused word, by the way) “saves” his beloved from the damage done by previous, less respectful relationships, I cheer. [Depending on whether I’m on my first or second gin, I may even snivel a bit.]
Most of us who have been in serious relationships before bear some sort of scar-tissue from them, whether or not they were particularly traumatic at the time, because getting that close to another person and then tearing that bond is bound to do some damage. The closer and deeper the previous connection, the worse the wound is likely to be—which is a very good reason indeed for not going to bed with a person with whom you have not already pledged to spend the rest of your life. Only, not many people tell you that when you’re young and foolish, and thus are we so often full of tears…
My alarm bells only really start to ring if the chap sets his beloved up to be “the girl who alone can save” him—usually meaning, he’s been a thorough rake and is in a terribly destructive cycle of behaviour. Often, men will say this to women to give them a reason to stay with them—and such a reason is often much-needed, since their behaviour is frequently of the sort that would have given Mata Hari pause for thought.
Alrighty, that’s enough from me for a bit. I look forward to reading your blog-post, Mikaela.
B(achelors’) A(untie)
November 6, 2008 at 2:02 am
Mikaela, I would add that people have to be really very careful about showing their wounds to others. When you do so, you make yourself extremely vulnerable. And as a woman, I think it a very, very good idea to make sure the man who claims to be smitten with you is trustworthy. If he has a mean streak, when you show him your scars, he knows exactly where to slip the knife in, and eventually he will.
For example, you might tell your new boyfriend about something absolutely wicked your old boyfriend did (I mean really wicked, not just forgetting your first-date-anniversary), and find your new boyfriend SYMPATHIZING with the old boyfriend, and generally taking his side against you. In one fell swoop your old wound reopens, and you’ve got a new one.
My rule of thumb is that the man should come across with all the dark secrets before the woman does. And the woman should wait for a definite proof of love before revealing her dark secrets. I say this because, unfortunately, there is still a double standard, particularly among conservative Christians. Better to wait until you are sure your beloved is so in love with you, you could tell him you slept with and then killed Jimmy Hoffa and all he would do is worry that you didn’t hide the body well enough and think of a better place to hide it.
But both “wounded healers” have to be trustworthy and respectful and swear to themselves never to use their new knowledge as a weapon in a fight.
Can you love someone back to health? Well, I don’t know. I’m inclined to think that it’s up to the wounded to get themselves as sorted as possible before falling in love. (In fact, only the sorted-out have the luxury of knowing that they are, in fact, in love and not just in a clingy infatuation.) But I do know that there are couples who have to gently remind each other from time to time that he/she is not his/her ex and cope with soothing worries that reminders of the ex invoke.
November 6, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Thank you both for your thoughts on this. I’m inclined to agree with both of you and I’ll give you a taste of my post-in-utereo (Ewww – can I say that?! I think I just did!)
Anyway, my friend said more or less what Seraphic said – that it is up to me to work through my issues first because the gentelman would never get anywhere if I were always waiting for him to turn into Mr. Hyde.
Now, I don’t disagree, but my thought is that while healing can take place in isolation, God made us social creatures who learn to love by watching other people, our parents, etc. and being loved by them. Yes, one can obtain healing through therapy and what not, but if one has been hurt by the cruelty of false love then it makes sense that one’s healing is accelerated by the joy of real unconditional love.
LOVED the Jimmy Hoffa comment ~ you rock, Lady! ;o)
November 7, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Dear Mr McAmbrose, I cannot wait any longer. You must write about the pinch test.
November 7, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Ze problem, Miss d’Eath, is that the person giving lovely generous love is likely to be hurt by the bizarre behaviour of the as-yet-unhealed object of his affection.
November 7, 2008 at 10:54 pm
I agree, Berenike and am familiar with that hurt all too well. But perhaps, if one waits until one is perfectly healed before accepting true love, then one will never enter into a relationship at all.
Though I suppose one’s woundedness would make it much more difficult to recognize and embrace the real once it appears….