Let's be honest. There are days when I wish I had someone to cuddle with at 2 AM. Someone to try out a new recipe on. Or a boy to blog about in a shes-so-happy-its-sickening kind of way, but then that same "someone" would complain about all the hours I spend studying and he'll like "need" things from me. And I'll want to give him those things. Cause let's face it, when I'm in a relationship, I'm all in. And then I'll be stressed and busier than normal--if that's even possible. I think everything happens for a reason and all things work according to some kind of plan, and I think being single these past 3+ years has been beneficial for me.
Another honest fact: I haven't seen a boy in 3 years that makes me want to be busier and stressed. I haven't met a boy who I'd wanna put myself out there for. And I guess according to this Yahoo! article, I need to "lower" my standards, date outside of my box in order to find Mr. Right. There are so many problems with this assertion I don't even know where to begin:
- Yahoo! You're assuming I have a "box" or a "type". I don't. I have never been one of those girls who wouldn't date a guy because he wasn't [insert physical attribute]. Never. I've date all kinds of guys. Tall guys. Short guys. Little guys. Big guys. I've never felt like, "Oh if you don't look like [insert sexy celebrity] I can't even talk to you." As long as you aren't FUGLY and I can find a somewhat redeeming physical quality about you, we can have a conversation. For me attraction is so much more than what a person looks like. I find personality traits ultimately make someone sexy or unsexy. Beautiful or fugly. I mean, take Heartbreaker for instance. That boy was short. Like not short for a man, short for a human being. But he was confident. He had (I hate to say it) swag. He knew who he was. And he was sexy. I don't have a "type". I'm an equal opportunity dater. If you're confident and we can have a real conversation, you have a shot.
- Why do women have to "lower" their standard but a FUGLY dude can hold out for Halle Berry? This article essentially asserts that men "deserve" their dream girl by telling a potentially single DIME that she needs to give the short, balding, pudgy guy a fair shot. Now, don't get me wrong, as stated above, Mr.ShortandPudgy could be an amazing man. Maybe he does deserve a shot, but no one is telling Channing Tatum-look-alike who's 35 and living the single life to give Precious a shot because she's an AMAZING woman. Nope. We'd never do that. Its a double standard and frankly, I find if offensive. There are millions of wonderful women who just don't look like Scarlett Johanssen who get looked over every day, who if we're being honest, probably exceed whatever expectations a man would have for a mate...if only she looked like the beauty queen who'd never look at your average-looking-ass anyway. (sigh)
- Being single isn't a problem Yahoo! (or anyone else for that matter) that needs to solve. This isn't HIV. Or Cancer. Why is there a race to the cure for singledom? I feel as if there is a ThinkTank of people who just sit around and think "How can we get this generation of women married off?" Uh. Get a life. That's what I'm doing. Instead of counseling women on how they can get a man (that they're probably not even ready for) why don't we, oh I don't know...TEACH THEM HOW TO CONTRIBUTE SOMETHING POSITIVE TO SOCIETY. We need to be writing books/articles teaching young women how to love themselves. How to protect themselves sexually. How to have the confidence to ask for a raise at work (cause statistically, women still don't do that). I look forward to the day when we stop defining the worth of a woman based upon if she's wearing a diamond on her left ring finger. We're sending such a skewed and dangerous message to our girls.
:STEPS OFF SOAPBOX:
No comments:
Post a Comment