when i think of love — i think of you and me standing, looking at each other. we are on two islands; there is a chasm between us, a torrid body of water so deep it bleeds into the earth’s core.
i’m dying to reach you: i could jump into the water, and if i’m lucky, i’ll wash ashore on your sands. but i start to wonder: would you do the same for me?
could we meet in the middle?
i return my attention to your eyes; your gaze has softened now. there’s still love in it, i know. but it doesn’t have the edge it did before, that absolute determination to swim or die trying.
you wouldn’t do it for me, wouldyou?
you turn away to another island; i am left looking at you across mine, before i eventually turn too.
i am cursed to be a woman; i am cursed to feel. the problem is that i struggle to determine who really wants me for who i am before i fall. elite men or otherwise, it is undeniable that i am only a body to some of them. i fear the proportion is higher than i wish it is. […]
but my femininity is not a weakness, it is a strength.
to my friends, and for my fans now
Welcome back to Gwyn’s Guide to Hyperoptimised Dating, where dating (and love) is a numbers game — and we hack it to hell.
Oh, following feedback from a fan yesterday on post #1 (sex and love), I wanted to take this space to add something before we proceed. They raised a good point that some men need time to get to know you better before they decide if you’re the one for them. If you bypass the pre-sex courtship, then, it is likelier that the man might develop feelings for you and get “sucked in” (verbatim quote, poor men!). Therefore, you lose the bucket of fence-sitters if you sleep with them early on.
It’s a fair point and I don’t disagree. My answer is that this boils down to personal preference: are you willing to give the fence-sitters a chance? I’ve met men who knew I was the one for them — at least, at that point — from the first time we met, and they were willing to show me from the start. Do I want to settle for anything less? I don’t think so.
In Part 2, on special request by a sweetheart, we will discuss signs of interest and when to disqualify.
I hope the psychopaths who want me don’t read this, or I have to wrack my brain to discover new and innovative ways to determine if men are interested in me (beyond my body). GOD!
I would say it all boils down to a gut feeling, but I thought that one of them I met was the one and that went down the drain real quick. So out with the vibes, out with the delusions, babygirls. At least I caught myself instantly this time — clearly, the compartmentalisation practice is working out.
We look only at actions hereon.
What’s in a Date?
With shock and surprise, I realised retroactively that men (and women) who are genuinely interested in you will want to partake in your hobbies. Groundbreaking indeed.
mrw
As you all know, it’s Jazz in July, and I initially began only intending to find cute boys to go to jazz concerts with (before I got sidetracked by hot men… thank you, Jesus…).
There were, broadly speaking, only two types of responses I received:
I don’t know much about jazz, but I’d love to try if you’re willing to have me 🙂
I don’t like jazz; can we do something else?
How interesting, right? Now, you can argue that the second type of man simply knows what he wants. That’s okay. I love men who are honest and have opinions. However, note that there is less acquiescence on his part compared to the first response type. If you bring it to the logical maximum it suggests that he is less interested in what you like as opposed to what he likes.
It is not about what we actually do. It is about how we get there.
Still, one date is poor sample sizing; there is nothing to interpolate from. Yet we must do our best because we are hyperoptimising.
Hence, we look at what we do on the second date (if there is one).
When planning the date together, did they ask what you’d like to do? Are they at least suggesting things that meet in the middle for both of you?
During the date, are they asking about you? What do you like, babygirl? What do you want in life? Where are you going? What are your fears? What do you look for in a partner? …How can I love you in the best way I can?
Or are they talking about themselves incessantly?
Texting, Yapping, Quality Time, Whatever You Like
Again, being kind and giving the benefit of the doubt, a relationship is meant to be founded on compromises. One guy mentioned we could go to a jazz bar, which was nice enough of him.
Unfortunately, he proceeded to text me remarkably inconsistently, so I figured he liked someone else more, dropped him, and bumped up my next favourite (possibly one of my top 10 decisions this year). It’s a pity (I exaggerate) because his face card was fantastic, but more importantly, I knew he could love — he still has pictures of his ex from years ago on his Instagram! (He orbits me, by the way. If you’re here, hi.)
The above is an example of a universal truth. If they wanted you, they would text you. NOBODY IS THAT BUSY THAT THEY CANNOT TEXT YOU. DO NOT MAKE EXCUSES FOR THEM! Additionally, the critical element distinguishing an excellent communicator (look out for it) is that if they were really busy, they would take the initiative to explain why. An exemplar:
Hey babygirl, I’m so sorry for my delayed responses as I’ve been swamped with work. Still, please feel free to text me whenever, and I’ll do my best to get back to you whenever I can. Love you lots x
It really is that simple. If you don’t have the physical bandwidth to write that, then bloody hell, just copy the text above and send it to the person you care about. My god! Do I have to say this!
People who love you will always set aside time for you.
They will not ghost you. I hate that term; I hate them all. I was so ready to love you for who you are, and this is what you thought I deserved in return. Not even an explanation, but nothing at all. It’s fine though — as the Stoics say, we are entitled to nothing from other people; to have expectations of others is futile. To give yourself to someone fully, you must expect nothing in return. And we must let go; we must return things as they are to make room for more, for better.
Your room has limited space. Do not give chances to people who do not cherish your attention. In the game of hyperoptimised dating, you only have one shot, and you’d better make the best of it.
So, love boils down to a war of attrition, I guess. He who persists wins.
Don’t turn around and change your mind; we don’t have time for that.
me yelling at me to RESPECT MYSELF
Sigh. I have once again written too much. But here’s the devastating kicker: if they liked you, you wouldn’t need to worry about these at all.
They would do all of it in the first place because you’re worth it to them.
And that’s what makes me sad.
Bonus: A Love Letter to My Orbiters
If you didn’t know, orbiters are people who do not reply your texts but watch your stories anyway. I categorise them into two types: malicious or stupid orbiters. But that’s a discussion for another time.
Processing orbiters is as easy as 123. If they can watch your stories, they have time to text you. Therefore, if they do not text you, they are just not that into you. Thank you. Mute their stories and go and talk to someone else who will be happy for your love and attention. But I’m not complaining; the orbiter class of men is my guilty pleasure (I mute orbiters who matter to me from watching my stories). Ultimately, every orbiter is a fan, and I adore my fans.
But that’s all you’ll ever be. If you’re happy with that, I’ll be happy for you too.
P/S: I’m not a saint. I make mistakes too. I yap too much, and I’m too emotionally volatile (apparently). Sometimes I inadvertently hurt people. So if you want something from me, tell me, babygirl, tell me now.
I’ll give it to you, because you’re worth it.
And so we end, before I go:
i’ll find a life partner eventually. but the love of my life — it’s me. and it’s you guys, my friends, who accept me completely as i am.
Another interesting thing is that a few similar questions were posted prior. All of them were fixated on women as the subject.
The answer distribution was interesting. It suggests that women do not give themselves completely to men until the latter have “proven their worth”, so to speak.
It made me wonder about my own answer. This post is my process of working it out.
Everyone deserves love — or so a humanistic therapist would say — although not everyone eventually deserves your love.
Not because reciprocity is expected, but because we have a finite capacity and must optimise where it goes. We must make calculated decisions about who we want to love and who we want to love more.
I wanted to believe I could love everyone the same, but I’m only human.
I was obsessed with you. I could beg you to pay attention to me and love me. But what for? I am chasing a mirage. You were never there; only my projected ideal of you was. Alone, I run, and alone, I am exhausted.
Or I could spend all that time that would have otherwise been spent pining on reconnecting with myself and the world. Even redirecting my focus to someone else would be a better idea — someone whose eyes will glow with affection when I am reflected in them and who has a fanatical, absolutist certainty about me. Repeat ad infinitum; such is the search for love.
If I think you’re worth it, of course, I would love you. But I cannot give endlessly without return.
Unrequited love is worthless — yes, not merely useless, worthless. Sure, feel your feelings and all — I understand — but all it ultimately is is a limbo that torments the indecisive. You must move forward. Either cross the suspension bridge to heaven and risk falling or leap straight into hell from where you stand. It will be terrifying for a while, but you will always land, which is a certainty you will never receive from the object of your affection.
The unknown is a critical variable in this. The law of probability is immutable — there is something better out there. Stay or leave for more.
With unrequited love, always leave. You owe it to yourself.
All that being said, would that have stopped me from loving you in the first place?
I bought you a gift before I realised that we had already met for the last time, a decision you made unilaterally for both of us and which I enforced. That’s okay; I’ll use it from now on. I will eventually forget it was ever for you: time is cruel to the ones who are loved but kind to the spurned.
So, my perhaps unexpected answer to the question (given the preamble) is: I will give you everything I have because I am, I was, ready to love you. I don’t believe in withholding love, though I do believe in withdrawing it upon reflection. If it’s not what you’re looking for, I will give it to someone else. I might break, but I will live, recover, and thrive in time.
The spiritual sequel to How to Lovebomb. Obviously, written as a joke — or is it? (cocks head)
The Thingamajig Strategy (by love bomber): (Accidentally) leave something smol behind at their place.
How/why it works (for the love bomber): A physical object reminds them of you. It creates an excuse to initiate contact, passing the responsibility to do so to them as in a delicate cha-cha routine.
Counterstrategy (for the lovebombed person): Throw the thing away — unless it’s a wallet. If so, retrieve the money and then throw it away. If they really needed it back, they’d ask. If they really wanted to see you again, they would initiate.
how you’ll sleep after getting rid of things that don’t spark you joy
TheCasper Strategy: Ghost them on chat but watch their stories obsessively. Don’t forget to like the stories where they’re super cute or you think allude to you.
How/why it works: Ghosting someone traps them in self-doubt preoccupied with what they did wrong, even though the problem stems from your inability to communicate like an adult. Kick them while they’re down by liking their stories on Instagram regularly, which bumps you to the top of the viewer list so they can’t ignore you even if they want to. It’s all power play, my friends, a perverse one once deconstructed.
(Effective for chronically online people who primarily rely on Instagram as a source of validation. But not effective for those who have a horde of fans to account to if they make questionable decisions.)
Counterstrategy: DON’T block them from watching your stories; no, enjoy the attention! DO block their stories from your feed, so you live in their mind collecting rent while you pay none. Then, go on to live your best life, whether you post about it online or not. Remember that YOU are the bourgeois and THEY are the proletariat.
this could be us but u ghosted me.
The ReincarnationStrategy: Reappear in their life by DMing them out of nowhere after a prolonged period of presumed death.
This strategy has two variations, each inversely proportional to the confidence or sympathy you wish to leverage. (Neither matters.)
Confidence route: provide no accompanying reason at all: simply audaciously announce that you desire to see them again.
Sympathy route: supplement the request with an explanation that you have been through some trööma that regrettably caused you to be unable to, again, communicate beyond the level of a three-year-old.
Pick the first variant if you’re insecure and the second if you’re manipulative. This strategy creates a virtuous loop with the ghosting one. You meet, die, reincarnate, and then die again! It’s an absolutely infallible combo. I recommend it 10/10 for clowns.
How/why it works: It throws the recipient off-guard by making them wonder if you have been thinking of them all this while. If they’re so over their head that they forget that you could have contacted them any time in between but chose not to until it was convenient for you (because they are ultimately a substitute), it could seem kind of romantic. In a world where we convince ourselves we don’t owe each other anything, it’s easy to confuse any casual act for affection. Lover beware!
Counterstrategy: Laugh in their face and move on. If you give in, oh well — we all have to binge on fast food occasionally because what is life without sin and a little indiscretion, even if you get a stomachache later. Just don’t make it a habit.
this photo isn’t even thematically related anymore. it’s just funny
The Promising Strategy: Make promises you have zero intentions of following through with.
Why/how it works: Empty promises lead to expectations, and the most powerful longing always concerns things that could have happened but never did. It’s inverted regret — a nostalgia for something that could’ve been, which could have been anything.
Counterstrategy: This one involves a radical change in your philosophy but will transform your life so drastically you’ll never look back. Hold on tight.
There are NO exceptions to this. NONE. Intentions mean absolute jackshit until they are realised. Whatever form they take on before realisation does not matter. It might as well not exist. It never existed. (TIL I’m materialistic without the -ic.)
If they believed you were worth it (immaterial), they would show you (material). If they claim to miss you (immaterial), they will meet you (material).
We can go further. A text telling you they miss you means nothing if they do not schedule a date to see you again. A kiss means nothing if the relationship is never defined (a “situationship”) and you are not cuffed — made “material” through accountability to others or bound by a physical contract.
We can argue that a text and a kiss are material since they occur in reality. But that is irrelevant because it is overshadowed by the immaterial intention behind the action that we project onto those we so desperately wish would love us.
The intention means nothing, even if they imply it, especially if you infer it.
Realise that we can never accurately capture the meaning of the present moment — the full picture only emerges in hindsight when the future has happened so that we can contextualise the past with it. You can immerse yourself in the now and feel it all, but that still doesn’t imbue it with any meaning outside your feelings. For an intention to be real, it must be manifested.
The past, present, and future cannot be considered separately in determining what is real and meaningful. Hell, even if it was real, it might not have meant anything. Maybe this is the logic that my pragmatic fans follow — did you really love them if you were never serious about them?
Naturally, you could argue that an intention could be real and meaningful, just that the person seems to be acting differently because you are mistaken about their intention. For example, if you’re only interested in sex, you only do booty calls. That’s perfectly congruent and reasonable if both parties are on board.
But the whole reason games exist is that people struggle to be upfront with what they want — worse if they do not know what they actually want. Then, everyone is in for a ride, and all intentions can go to die.
We can only establish if someone is sincere about you through the two elements of continuity and consistency. In other words, action and commitment, over and over, like the sea waves crashing into the shore for eternity, until death do us part.
—you will find someone who will love you, who sees you as a person, who is attracted to you; who will choose you, and continuously choose you.
my bestie (if everyone had a love like this there would be no divorces)
In short, words are just words (suddenly, I realise what my love language is not). You telling me I’m your favourite or that you respect me means nothing. I don’t care. You either prove it, or none of it matters — saying it is just performativity. You don’t have to say anything; I already know.
Intentions alone mean nothing. Promises mean nothing.
Perhaps even this blog post has meant nothing. But I hope it is at least marginally useful for my fans in helping them sieve out people who deserve them and people who don’t. God willing, considering how much time I’ve wasted on playing games, I might as well help people save some of theirs.
Know your worth, and the rest will follow. Whatever you give, you will receive in turn, good and bad.
– x, baby g, who loves you always (and has hopefully demonstrated it)
Bonus:
we accept the love we think we deserve.
my other bestie (quoting the Perks of Being a Wallflower)
Humans commit to one another based on considerations of potential. They assess a prospect’s suitability and commit if they decide the arrangement is satisfactory.
Assortative mating comes into play here.
You date people you think are “in your league”, or if you’re lucky, you think are out of your league. Despite this, objectively speaking, if they like you back in the long run, they’re in your league (because they feel the same way about you — they think you’re good enough for them). So don’t be insecure about yourself, okay, babygirl? And watch out for lovers who regularly put you down — it’s not you, it’s them.
Ever heard of the ELO score on Tinder? That’s what’s operating here, except that Tinder is the World Wide Web (Offline).
Your ELO score comprises different dimensions: physical attractiveness/sex appeal, intelligence, wealth, health, humour, “personality”, etc. People differ in their preferences on those dimensions, although universal trends exist. Example:
but note many people don’t know what they really want, or lie to themselves. You and me included.
Naturally, idiosyncratic preferences exist. For example, I like simps. (Wait — who doesn’t?) Random disclosure from me because I love to overshare, and I want to remind everyone to know your worth: I permanently disqualified someone recently because he acted like he had no time for me. Huge landmine he stepped on. Well, so be it. You can play games with me… if you’re ready to lose. (Like, I said I would be okay if my partner had little time for me, but you can read my blog but not text me? Then you can stay a blog reader, thank yew.)
The preferences are gendered. Universal example: men prioritise physically attractive women; women prioritise high-status men. So, you are more likely to see a rich older man with a hot younger lady than the opposite.
The preferences are culturally influenced. Anecdotal example: sexual prowess does not rank highly for a lot of people in Singapore versus some other Western nation where hookup culture is more prevalent (I don’t even need to be specific; that’s how little sex we have. I must go.)
A relationship between two people who differ significantly on one dimension can still work out if that dimension is less important to the party who is higher on it. Hence, the “ugly funny guy gets the boring pretty girl” because looks > humour for him, humour > looks for her. You get the idea. On average, their ELO scores even out.
Lay theory prediction: the longer a relationship lasts, the more objectively similar the couple’s ELO scores are. A relationship with partners with discrepant scores is less likely to last, and the one with the higher score (delusional or not) tends to withdraw first. But even the delusional one will eventually be knocked back to reality through trial and error feedback — the only constant in life is the law of large numbers.
The best way to get an idea of your ELO score is to look at your long-term partner (or the kind of people you attract). If it still doesn’t add up… one of you has a self-esteem issue.
People commit based on potential. They stay committed for different reasons.
The investment model of relationships (Rusbult, 1980) predicts that commitment is determined by three factors. The more satisfied you are with the relationship and the more invested in it, the more likely you are to stay committed. The better you perceive your potential alternatives (other people in “your league”), the less likely you are to stay committed.
Some relevant concepts:
Sunk cost fallacy. An economist’s favourite. You’re unhappy in a relationship — but because you’ve invested so much into it, you might as well stay. Consider prospective and opportunity costs instead, which is what you lose by staying. Then again, I still can’t let go of my Sea Ltd stocks. So don’t let me tell you what to do.
People who claim they’re “dating down” are lying (and to themselves, too, if they lack self-awareness). You’re staying because you think you couldn’t get a superior alternative if you tried. If you genuinely believed you were dating down, your staying is irrational, meaning there is more to unpack there. Note that these evaluations are inherently subjective — just because you think you’re dating up or down doesn’t mean others will agree.
The lesson here (for me) is that if you want to assess your compatibility with your partner, don’t ask yourself. Ask your friends. Ask your parents. They might be biased, but they’re less biased than you.
The higher your ELO score, the better your quality of alternatives. That’s why hot guys can afford to play around. I’m just waiting for it to be acceptable for hot girls (joking — I don’t care).
Personal exposition (love and naïveté)
Men in Singapore are looking for stability. At least, an overwhelming number of men I’ve met are like this (same for women, where there is even less variation). My observation is definitely age-contingent, though. Guys are looking for girlfriends at 20 but wives at 30.
I was baffled for years about the preoccupation with stability, but I might be starting to see the light. Love’s great in itself, of course, but it is not enough in the great Pragmatic Nation of Singapore. People want love to lead to concrete outcomes, such as marriage, a BTO, and, most importantly, in the grand scheme of things (driven by a force beyond our control), children: the continuation of our species.
And why not, indeed?
Objectively speaking, the above are not inevitable outcomes of love. A counterpoint, however: maybe love — romantic love in particular — evolved to perfection precisely as an instrument to ensure these outcomes happen, over and over again, across humanity, and beyond time. That is, love was designed to lead to stability. Rather than being choices, as I hypothesised in post #1, they are merely two points on the same line headed in one direction. You either realise that love is to settle or stay naïve.
So, love is not enough.
Maybe I am naïve. I don’t really care. I’ll panic when I’m 30, I guess. Even if singlehood and living in a henhouse with my girls is my destiny, it’s not as if I’ll be loved any less. Put that on the record: it is what it is. Do what’s good for you.
It seems you all adore my lay theory (or at least find it fun), so here’s a follow-up! Please read part 1 if you haven’t figured out your type — you will need the info to contextualise the following.
In the previous post, we investigated the first tenet, which predicted that men prefer to marry for stability while women prefer to marry for love. (I still stand by this for Singaporean men, by the way.)
Alas, findings from my informal poll did not support my prediction. Instead, we found the opposite pattern: more men voted for love (57.9%), while more women voted for stability (54.5%). How exciting! Of course, that means we must investigate the issue further.
Yes. Study.
In the current study, we will do two things: (1) investigate the second tenet from my lay theory and (2) attempt to replicate the findings of the first poll.
To recapitulate:
Second tenet: I posit that people looking to date can be divided into two major types: people who date to date (the Romantics) and people who date to marry (the Pragmatics).
Your gender does not influence whether you are a Romantic or Pragmatic, unlike with marriage. Rather, other aspects such as your personality, upbringing and past relationship experiences will determine your type.
Aim of current study: observe the proportion of men and women that self-categorise into each type under my typology. We are looking at a combination of marriage and dating preferences this time (we looked only at marriage preferences previously).
Gwyn’s Typology of Love, Revisited
Hypotheses: Given the findings from the previous study, here were my predictions this time —
Hypothesis 1: For marriage, more men will select love, and more women will select stability.
Hypothesis 2: For dating, the split of Pragmatics and Romantics will be roughly equal across genders.
Method: Instagram poll
Participants were shown the prompt “Now that you have read my blog, tell me your type” (LOL totally legit study)
Men and women answered on separate pages. Both saw the same 4 options (format: marriage/dating preference)
Stable/pragmatic
Love/pragmatic
Stable/romantic
Love/romantic
Participants: 24-30 years old, mostly college-educated working adults
Inclusion criteria: must have read the first lay theory post (duh, I need more fans)
Hypothesis 1:For marriage, more men will select love, and more women will select stability.
Hypothesis 1 NOT supported.
Look at the split across genders (stable/love): males (14/15) and females (10/8). Within each gender, the votes are more or less equally split.
Now, what would Study 1 have to say about this!
Granted, Study 1 was better powered because not everyone reads my blog (sad), so the sample size this time is about half the original. Plus, fewer women responded than men. But if we consider the findings legit, maybe the split is more even than it initially seemed.
What we have suggests that gender does not play a significant role in determining whether you would marry for love or stability. Men and women are equally likely to pick either. Other characteristics such as personality, family dynamics, or past dating experience could better explain whether you prefer to marry for love or stability.
Hypothesis 2:For dating, the split of Pragmatics and Romantics will be roughly equal across genders.
Hypothesis 2 PARTIALLY supported —and the results are interesting
First, we look at both genders taken together (pragmatic/romantic) = 29/18
Then males = 15/14 — roughly the same, which matches my prediction
BUT females = 14/4 — disproportionately slanted towards pragmatic dating
My interpretation is that women are more selective than men in the sense that they prefer to date with the intention of ultimately marrying their partner (in the long term).
Actually, that’s not surprising at all. Evolutionary theory does predict that women tend to be more selective in their partners, and I don’t think I need to give an example of it — you’ve probably seen it play out in your own life, or at least by listening to your friends’ stories. (But read this for an interesting caveat.)
Sexual Strategies Theory (SST) put forward by Buss and Schmitt (1993) [suggests that] mate choice […] is highly sensitive to the temporal context of short-term versus long-term partnerships. Based on different minimum parental investment of different sexes, men are predicted to prefer more sexual partners and variety, i.e. more short-term mates. This has been replicated by several studies (Kurzban & Weeden, 2005; Oliver & Hyde, 1993; Schmitt et al., 2001; Shackelford et al., 2004). Thus, short-term relationship seeking is believed to be much more common among men than women.
However, note that not all evidence supports the SST’s premise:
According to a study by Li and Kenrick (2006), “the sexes are similarly selective for long-term relationships, whereas women are more selective regarding short-term relationships” (p. 483). The study also found a significant interaction-effect in which the sexes were more similar in their preferences for short- versus long-term mates: both sexes prioritized physical attractiveness for short-term mates whereas women were less selective for long-term mates’ appearance (Li & Kenrick, 2006).
ibid.
Furthermore, the results we’re seeing in our study could be explained based on our participant characteristics rather than the theories provided above. That’s when things get more complicated and thus fascinating. Some alternative explanations I thought of:
1. Women in Singapore have no interest in short-term dating because it is not considered a possibility in the first place. The dating phase is merely a means to an end. Or, to put it differently, no distinction is made between dating and marriage. Marriage is merely the inevitable, natural outcome of dating. I know people who think like this — and if we generalise, many women think like this as opposed to men, though some men definitely think the same.
The above begs the question of what “dating” means to us in the first place. Is it a short-term relationship with a non-guaranteed possibility of becoming more? The definition of pragmatic dating and the overwhelming female preference for it suggest that women are essentially looking for absolute certainty: they want to be confident that this is the person they want to commit to before committing to them.
Honestly, that baffles me. How can you commit if you do not know what you are committing to? There must inherently be a trial period in the style of Schrödinger, no? And isn’t that… well, dating? It has the absurdity of going to Best Denki, looking at a TV that is not switched on, and deciding to buy it based on its specifications alone. It’s not wrong, but it’s a suboptimal strategy to me.
But it might be just me getting this all mixed up.
2. It is possible that (most) women in Singapore are not interested in dating for love. This is related to the above but has a little nuance to it. When I discuss this matter with my friends, I sometimes get this response: “Why try if it’s not going to work out?”
Again, a totally legitimate (albeit rather avoidant) response. But here’s a poem that expresses my counterpoint better than I can:
Everyone forgets that Icarus also flew. It’s the same when love comes to an end, or the marriage fails and people say they knew it was a mistake, that everybody said it would never work. That she was old enough to know better. But anything worth doing is worth doing badly. Like being there by that summer ocean on the other side of the island while love was fading out of her, the stars burning so extravagantly those nights that anyone could tell you they would never last. Every morning she was asleep in my bed like a visitation, the gentleness in her like antelope standing in the dawn mist. Each afternoon I watched her coming back through the hot stony field after swimming, the sea light behind her and the huge sky on the other side of that. Listened to her while we ate lunch. How can they say the marriage failed? Like the people who came back from Provence (when it was Provence) and said it was pretty but the food was greasy. I believe Icarus was not failing as he fell, but just coming to the end of his triumph.
I have a lay theory of partner selection preferences of males and females in heterosexual romantic relationships. Oh, hear me out — it’ll be a fun ride (perhaps even obvious in hindsight!)
First tenet: Men and women have different criteria for life partners.
Men settle for stability, and women settle for love.
Men are more rational and calculating: they choose to settle with women they intuit they can build families with. This is not necessarily the woman they love the most, although they will definitely try to convince themselves so.
Another way to put it is that they will eventually marry the women their mothers approve of more. As a man, you might scoff at the idea that your mother has any real influence in deciding who you marry, except she does — you just haven’t consciously come to terms with it.
The above is where the “girlfriend but not wife material” (GBNWM from now on) descriptor stems from — because men are better at separating love, sexual desire, and marriage. So, the woman who he loves, the woman who is attractive to him, and the woman who he marries can be three different women. Lucky him if they are the same woman, but they are often separate.
Women are more emotion-driven. They want to and are more likely to settle with men they love. This would suggest that love and marriage come together. And what about sexual desire? Ever heard the familiar story of girlfriends hurt by their boyfriend’s pornography/Insta hot girl pic consumption (let’s not pretend otherwise), while the boyfriend exasperatedly attempts to explain that “porn is just porn; it doesn’t mean I love you less”? Indeed, he does not love her less, but he does not understand that women conflate the three elements.
Of course, women seriously consider aspects like wealth and physicality, which are evolutionary signals for reproductive fitness. But give them a choice and they will let love lead the way.
In summary, men marry with their heads (yes, not the other head), and women marry with their hearts.
Art imitates life
We have discussed marriage. Now, let us discuss dating.
Second tenet: I further posit that people looking to date can be divided into two major types: people who date to date (the Romantics) and people who date to marry (the Pragmatics).
Your gender does not influence whether you are a Romantic or Pragmatic, unlike with marriage. Rather, your personality and past relationship experiences will determine your type. I will go as far as to predict that people who are high on openness to experience (a personality trait) are more likely to be Romantics.
Romantics say “I love them so much I can’t breathe; I have to be with them”.
Pragmatics say “I think they’re a great partner; I can see them in my future”.
There’s no right or wrong — it’s just a preference that has significant repercussions on who you meet and stay with, and how your relationships play out in the long-term. In general, Romantics are open to dating more people than Pragmatics, but they have shorter relationships.
(All of this is to say that you are not a “high-value person”, bless you, if you are selective in your choice of partners; you are probably just a typical Pragmatic, LOL. You should never be using that term unironically anyway.)
I did predict that men are more rational when it comes to marriage, but this does not necessarily mean they are more likely to be pragmatic when it comes to dating. For example, you may primarily date for love and discover a love that clutches at your heart and breaks you apart but still decide to marry someone stable in the end.
What’s interesting is that when the two tenets are combined, they result in unique patterns of partner-seeking behaviour in men and women.
Pragmatic men are the most selective, and Romantic women are the least selective.
Let’s say you are a typical Pragmatic man: you are looking for someone stable, and you are dating to marry. You will immediately disqualify GBNWMs because an uncontrollable woman might be sexual napalm as a girlfriend, but a liability as a wife. (I name this phenomenon “double jeopardy”, dedicated to crazy girls like me.) You will only date potential wives, which significantly restricts your selection pool.
Conversely, Pragmatic women might give chances to and later marry men who seem to not be husband material at first. Because — to use a cliché — love conquers all, and all can be forgiven. There might be no male equivalent for the GBNWM, actually — have you ever heard women describe a man like that?
Romantic men are kind of in-between in the sense that they might date for fun but not marry until they’re confident they’ve found the one.
Romantic women are just in trouble. HAHAHAHAH
Now we can make pairing predictions:
Pragmatics prefer fellow pragmatics. Pair two Pragmatics together and you are basically guaranteed a stable relationship. They’re that couple who has been together since the start of university (they met in some school camp), have gotten a BTO, and will be having their wedding this year.
Romantics care less about who they date. If paired with a Pragmatic, they may experience stress. If paired with a fellow Romantic, the relationship will be intense, but not necessarily stable, not that they mind.
The combination least likely to work out is between a Pragmatic man and a Romantic woman because their values differ the most. (Maybe I keep falling for Pragmatic men…)
the Pragmatic and the Romantic (I actually think Mario is a Romantic)
Third tenet: I expect that conservative men and women (compared to liberals) are more likely to be Pragmatic daters AND marry for stability. Conservatism involves upholding traditional standards in everyday life. Example: you believe that family is defined as the nuclear unit, men and women have different roles to play, etc.
The reason is that the more conservative you are, the more likely you are to adhere to gender stereotypes or the dominant trends you observe around you. And the Singapore Dream is stability across all facets of life. Singaporeans are generally quite conservative and risk-averse. Even marriages are tinged with transactionality nowadays (think BTO).
There’s nothing wrong with being conservative or liberal. It’s a preference. I’m not insinuating that those who lean conservative are mindless sheep. We make decisions that are aligned with our values. If you believe the status quo is fine, you would naturally act in a way that maintains it.
I might be completely wrong. These are all based on anecdotal observations limited to Singapore, and my friends have told me I tend to attract men who are bad for me (like attracts like, OK). You are welcome to DM me agitatedly proclaiming yourself as an exception, hah.
The final caveat is that these are generalisations, as theories must have — it does not mean all men and women act the same way. I am a Love/Romantic based on my theory though (of course). This means I date to date, and I will marry for love, consequences be damned.
Feel free to categorise yourself and let me know what you are. (If I am interested in you, I will ask you if I haven’t already guessed it).
Gwyn’s Typology of Love
Now for the cherry on top.
The research study: I ran an informal poll on Instagram to see if my hypotheses were supported. It’s not IRB-approved and might have involved coercion (I threatened my friends with the cold shoulder if they didn’t respond, hahahahaha).
It covers marriage preferences (first tenet) only. I will conduct another study for the types later, so stay tuned.
My aim is to demonstrate that in selecting a life partner:
Hypothesis 1: A higher percentage of men will pick stability > love.
Hypothesis 2: A higher percentage of women will pick love > stability.
Method:
Participants were shown the prompt “In selecting a life partner, is stability or love more important to you?”
They picked one of the two options provided — “stability” or “love” — and indicated their gender, male or female.
Sample characteristics: 21-30 years old, predominantly university-educated
Results:
Overall, both genders (N = 101)
Stability = 48 (47.5%)
Love = 53 (52.5%)
Men (n = 57)
Stability = 24 (42.1%)
Love = 33 (57.9%)
Women (n = 44)
Stability = 24 (54.5%)
Love = 20 (45.5%)
Summary of results
Hypothesis 1 not supported. Men prefer love over stability in their criterion for a life partner.
Hypothesis 2 not supported. Women prefer stability over love.
Of course note that I didn’t test for significance. But the differences seem big enough.
Discussion: Well, consider me shooketh. So I’m an anomaly? And my friends, too? This goes to show that one’s (my) view of the world can be surprisingly limited in the grand scheme of things. Or because I didn’t do my literature review before I generated my theory — it’s grounded science, baby!
Possible explanations of the findings from the literature:
Evolutionary theory suggests that men’s long-term mating strategies involve searching for women of “high reproductive value”, which is inferred via physical attractiveness and age. None of these are related to stability (Buss & Schmitt, 2019, pp. 88-89). (But they aren’t related to love either, which more men in the sample picked?)
Evolutionary theory again suggests that women’s long-term mating strategies involve searching for men who (1) can provide economic and status resources, (2) offer physical protection, and (3) are willing to commit (ibid., pp. 93-95). These all indicate stability.
Some potential alternative explanations must be considered:
Skewed sample characteristics: My followers tend to be liberal, so the effects would be weaker (or even inverted) compared to my predictions.
You guys are forecasting wrongly. HAHAHAHAHA. Let’s see why and to whom you all get married in the end — let me know! (wink)
Thank you to all of my 101 followers who participated. I hope you find the love you deserve.
Me and my future man who is rich, ambitious, protective, and committed
my friends joke that i’ve been “blitzed out” recently; i have tasted true freedom.
i’m privileged in that i’ve always had some degree of freedom in my life — where i’ve been, where i want to go, and where i’m going.
recently, though, i’ve experienced freedom so intensely that it gave me whiplash. the realisation came slowly, then all at once.
i can do whatever i want.
if i want to earn money, i’ll work. if i want a break, i’ll take it because my self-worth is no longer tied to work — it doesn’t matter what others think. if i want to get away from everything for a bit, i can leave whenever, i can go wherever. if i want something, all i have to do is reach for it.
i don’t need to want love; i already have it.
my darling yeye yapped to me earlier about how the “golden age” (黄金时代) in my life is now. he’s right, but i believe there’s more than one. in Civilization VI, the only game i have 500 hours on, we have golden ages; we have dark ages; we have heroic ages, when a dark age is followed by a golden age. they come in cycles… life may not be endlessly good, but it will never be endlessly bad either.
in another epoch i believed that i was the happiest i could ever be, and all i wanted was to hold on for as long as possible.
as i was happy then, i too am happy now. i guess i’m blitzed out in happiness.
i do not know if there is more — i secretly hope there is more, because there’s so much out there — but this moment is also enough.
these days i feel closer to my friends: we’ve had many adventures together. i feel like i can tell them anything — and i do. i’ll spout unhinged nonsense out of nowhere, and they’ll high-five me and affirm me as the main character because, of course.
or i’ll blabber about my fantasies, and they’ll sigh and tell me, softly, as if they don’t want to hurt me, that what I want is unrealistic.
and when they do that, i’ll observe every twitch of their face, count the times they furrow their eyebrows or blink exasperatedly, and immerse myself in their sound arguments.
sometimes i listen, most of the time i don’t. i’ll inevitably make “bad decisions”, and they’ll get frustrated with me. but in the end, i always do what i want, because i know that no matter what they’ll accept me for who i am. i don’t have to justify myself because i know they’ll understand.
and isn’t that love as i’ve always wanted?
you are etched into me so much more than you realise — i am but a mosaic of our memories, heartfelt exchanges, and whispered secrets.
my universe was created by you all, and i’ll be damned, because what we’ve made is so beautiful.
baby g’s diary 