Dating Casually

I have written before about the need to change the vocabulary of online dating and to stop using terms that treat it like a game., That was five years ago, pre-Covid, pre-cost-of-living-crisis and when climate catastrophe was a distinct possibility but not staring us in the face. Since then the world of online dating seems to have become more fraught, and harder to navigate if you are a sensitive soul who gets easily attached. What do I mean by that? People seem to have become more fickle, its more common to have nice conversations end abruptly for no apparent reason and everyone seems to be suffering from dating fatigue. So, today's post is about casually and whether it is a good strategy (strategy is a word I use consciously). The concept of casual dating is now new and could mean various things. It could be taking things very slowly and keeping the option of seeing other people open. If you choose that option, being upfront about it. The goal of casual dating may be to meet the person you want to commit to. It could also be a precursor to ethical non-monogamy, which is a concept I am curious about, even though I don't think its for me. You may or may not be sleeping with the people you are dating casually, but sex and romance are still on the cards--these are not platonic relationships even if they might turn into that in the future. Casual dating seems to be a good choice for emotionally resilient people with a full life, who desire a high degree of autonomy. But, is it a good choice for sensitive souls who get attached very easily as a way to not get too attached to a single person? To hedge their bets, as a crude as the term sounds? I increasingly think so. There is, of course, no excuse for dishonesty or mind games. But, aren't sensitive souls incapable of mind games, even if they can end up hurting people without meaning to do so? 

Kohhra

I just watched a TV series, Kohhra, which was a searing depiction of hypermasculinity and the violence it wreaks in the lives of men and women alike. I am not for a moment suggesting that patriarchy hurts men as much as women. It obviously hurts women more. But, the difference between hypermasculine cultures and other patriarchal cultures is there is lot of violence by men against men in the former in addition to violence by men against women, which is a feature of all patriarchal cultures. To be sure, there are plenty of ways that the patriarchy destroy lives without resorting to outright violence. But, I do feel that men, especially upper-caste men, have it much better in non-hypermasculine cultures as there is much more tolerance for departing from the masculine norm. The particular culture depicted is celebrated in the popular culture for its chivalry and sense of public service, so this was as a useful corrective. The line between being protective towards women and controlling women is a thin one. So, was it all doom and gloom? No. People rebel against repressive cultures for the freedom to live their lives as they please, to love whomever they wish, at the risk of losing their limbs or even lives. 

What I also appreciated about the series is its depiction of police violence in India against suspects, and how routine custodial torture is. I have never been at the receiving end of it and likely will never be due to my privileged position. But, I have seen enough to know that its routine. The time I saw a cop slap a truck driver just because he was parked in the wrong place; my visit to a police station where I saw a man trembling with pain and covered in bruises being led away in handcuffs. And, the time when I rode with a police patrol as part of a journalism assignment  and accompanied them on "raids" whose only purpose was to harass migrant workers by landing up at their lodges in the middle of the night, waking them up in the middle of the night and demanding to know their names and why they were there. In most TV series, police violence is glamorised, but not in this one. 

Gruesome Videos

 Today was the day I stumbled upon not one, not two but three gruesome videos on social media. I am not going to describe them because they are the best forgotten. All I am going to say the video of a man punch, knockdown and kick a Just Oil Protestor in the head was the least disturbing of the lot. I have always thought that I have a strong stomach, but the most gruesome video shook me badly. I have nothing else to say. I am just going to be careful not to wander into the nether regions of social media again. 

Jabeur's Implosion

I just watched Ons Jabeur lose her second consecutive single's final. It was not a close well-fought match as Jabeur pretty much choked. Before the match, they play pre-recorded interviews with the players. Vondrousava was confident on the verge of cocky, and didn't even mention her opponent once. She seems like a cool cat--was not even seeded, she doesn't even have a sponsor, her husband is at home taking care of the the cat. Jabeur was a bundle of nerves. Apparently, she has been working with a sports psychologist to build her nerves. At one point in the interview, she appeared to repeat her affirmations, "Whatever happens, I love myself and accept myself". She also said she has been working on her self-talk. I am not going to deign to compare myself with an elite athlete, but I also have an anxious personality and I have also choked in the few competitive games of badminton I played at the school level. I remember one particular game when I was playing with a much weaker opponent whose only decent shot was a jump smash. All I had to do was serve low and play near the net, but I imploded. It felt like I was fighting myself and losing, almost like an act of self-harm. Having a match slip out of your fingers and watching yourself go down without a fight is a pretty shitty feeling even in a school match, so I can't even imagine what its like in a Wimbledon final. It can often seem unfair that some people are born with emotional resilience and others have to work hard and work constantly at it. But, thus is life and bad luck can come in far worse forms. 

BFF

 I went on my first Bumble BFF (the friendship version of the dating app) date today, and it was bit of a damp squib. I am trying to broaden my social horizons and look beyond the academic, intellectual type that most of my friends would qualify as. This guy was outgoing, artsy and perfectly nice, but there was no platonic spark. That elusive spark! There is the obvious intellectual challenge of trying to dissect that spark into individual components. One obvious component is a shared sense of humour (although people with a dry sense of humour have to be careful that they don't come across as absolute dicks when they first meet someone). I know that not all friendships are birthed by a spark. Some come from fondness bred by familiarity. That familiarity could result from a sharing an office space or a home or from any situation that puts two people together for extended amounts of time. And, if you have similar interests you are more likely to spend enough time to allow the fondness to develop. Which means you should stick to seeking out your type of people? 

The Challenge of Defining Masculinity

 Another post on the crisis in masculinity, inspired by this article. The article talks about how men are falling behind in terms of professional achievements, rising deaths of despair among men, the rise of toxic role models like Andrew Tate, all of which is familiar territory by now. But, the focus of the article was on the difficulty of defining a masculinity that isn't toxic to serve as a guide for young men. There are some who believe that it is impossible to do so without sliding into essentialism--defining certain traits as masculine and others feminine, which brings you full circle to all the problems of patriarchy. But, the author argues that men are different from women, and not just that they have reproductive organs but also in character and personality, even if there is no one way to be either a man or a woman. She says  we need "a model (of masculinity) that acknowledges male particularity and difference but doesn't denigrate women to do so. Its a vision of gender that's not androgynous but still equal, and relies on character, not just biology. And it acknowledges that certain themes--protector, provider, even procreator--still resonate with many men and should be worked with, not against." I agree even if I, as a man, don't identify with all the themes she has mentioned, especially the last one. We can replay the nature-nurture debate about whether men are born with these traits or socialized into them till the cows come home (although there is , according to the article, a reasonable consensus that the distinctiveness arises from testosterone). Men--even the woke feminist ones--are distinct from women (obviously to different degrees) and an androgynous society would not appeal to most people. This does nothing to answer the question of how to define a masculinity that could serve as a code of rules for young men. But, at least, its an acknowledgement that we do need a code. 

Friends/Lovers as Therapists

(Some) women complain that (many) men can't/don't want to talk about their feelings. Many men are also realising that their friendships with other men ae superficial and that the conversation doesn't go beyond the level of banter or piss-taking. There are, unquestionably, many men who would benefit from talking about their feelings or even seeking therapy (I don't believe everyone needs therapy, but that is a topic for another post). But there are also men who are comfortable talking about their feelings with women, men who count women among their close friends. Yes, cishet men, not just gay men. I have written before about benign masculinity, and how some men are more comfortable talking to their female friends rather than their male friends, even if they know that the latter are also the sensitive, feminist types. Today's post is about these men who are comfortable talking about their feelings with women they have established a rapport with. For such men, it is easy to slip into the role of therapee, and there are women who complain about being put into the role of therapist by potential romantic partners. And, that is obviously a bad idea for a number of reasons. Friends/partners are not trained in counselling, and talking to them might be counter-productive even if they are well-meaning. Secondly, the risk of slipping into a neediness/co-dependency dynamic which is unfair on the other person. Yes, being able to confide in the other person when in need is an essential aspect of any romantic or close platonic relationship. But, relationships are about so much more than seeking or providing emotional support. They are about shared interests, shared values and beliefs, fun, laughter, banter, maybe sex. If its only emotional support and guidance you are after and you can afford it, you should be prepared to fork out 50 quid per session. Not to mention the fact that you can be much more frank with someone you don't know and who doesn't know you (becoming the client of a friend who is a professional therapist is a bad idea). And, if you does feel yourself slipping into such a dynamic, maybe its a sign that you do need a therapist. 

Himbos

 I came across a tweet by an academic which said that she was wondering whether one of her sons is going to be a himbo--empty head, no worries, positive vibes only. I was mesmerized by the term, so I looked it up. It turns out it also includes ravishingly good looks, and arose in the early 2010s following a spate of films in which the female comic lead had a hot dumb male counterpart to serve as a backdrop to her jokes. What wouldn't a chronic overthinker like me give to be a himbo? I know a number of people who are happy by nature as well as mentally well-endowed, so I know you don't need to have an empty head to give out positive vibes. But, it does seem like an appealing attribute, especially since if one is empthy-headed, one by definition doesn't pay much attention to the contents of their head, or lack thereof. But, it also got me thinking about whether I know any himbos. I do not. But, do himbos exist only in movies? I instantly thought of the Jackass movie franchise, and thought a bunch of the characters could qualify as himbos (although a counterargument could be that the himbo is a carefully constructed onscreen persona). The Jackass movies are immensely popular. It turns out there is a huge audience for stuntmen pulling pranks on each either, getting hit in the balls, doing outrageous stunts and sometimes getting badly injured, all while laughing uproariously. Playing the fool is an artform, which shouldn't be underestimated. But, I have digressed and should return to the topic of the himbo. Does a himbo have the self-awareness to realise he is a himbo? There is a song in one of the jackass movies that goes "If you are going to be dumb, you've gotta be tough. When you get knocked down, you've got to get up. I ain't the sharpest knife, but I know enough, if you gonna be dumb, you've got to be tough.". Its not high poetry, but I definitely don't think its written by a dumb person. 

On Making Friends

 I read an article today advising men on how to make friends. There is a crisis of loneliness, particularly among men, and this is becoming a popular theme for writers. Most men, apparently, struggle to have conversations that go deeper than banter, and many admit to not having a single close friend. The article was not a particularly engrossing one, and its suggestions can be be summed up as a) don't be embarrassed to seek new friends b) don't be embarrassed to read books to improve your socializing skills. If only it were that easy to find people with similar interests and whose personalities don't grate on your nerves (and vice versa, of course). I am not an outgoing person at all, but I don't instinctively shy away from making friends with a kindred spirit. Finding a kindred spirit is the tough bit--shared interests and platonic chemistry are both essential (at least to me). Friendship is one of my pet themes, so I am not going to say all I want to say in this post. But, the article did not explore the possibility of friendships between men and women and the challenge of maintaining friendships beyond the initial spark without seeming pushy. It also struck me that most of my friends are people unlike me in one respect--without an exception, they are warm and outgoing (this is definitely deserves a separate post). Also, I am not going to miss this opportunity to plug one of my first and most widely read blogspots, written back in 2007.

Landlord (and his kids) Return

 My landlord returned from Romania today, along with his two kids. I wasn't dreading the prospect of his return. I have lived for years with housemates who took up physical space as well as a good amount of space in my head because of their behaviour and habits. It often happened that relations were relatively warm initially, but turned frosty over time. Its difficult to be friendly with someone who does not show consideration for you, especially when your relationship is not built on a foundation of friendship. You can to some extent be more open about your frustration with a friend you live with, even though its common for friends who live together to move to salvage their friendship or to stop being friends. I have friends who say they must live alone, even if they can only afford a small, danky place. I have never felt that way. I would be happy to live with a friend who is as considerate and clean as I like to think I am. But the experience of the past few years has scarred me that I don't want to have a housemate unless I am acquainted with them and their living habits. My housemate horror stories could fill a book and this blog contains some of them. I would often take days off in the middle of the week because my housemates would be away at work, and go into the office on weekends, just to steer clear of them. But, that is a stage of life that I have hopefully left behind for good. 

Heat Of the Night

 I usually don't do book or movie reviews because they require more skill than I have and also more effort than I am prepared to muster for a blog post. So, this is not a movie review, its just a post about a movie I watched last night. The movie is called Heat of the Night, and stars Sidney Poitier as a black Philadelphia cop who finds himself called to assist in solving a murder in a town in  a 1960s Mississippi small town. There is a lot to like about the movie, but what I enjoyed most is the picture it drew of the summer nights in the 1960s Deep South. I admit to having a morbid curiosity about the Deep South. I have a friend who lives in South Carolina who says it is a common sight to see Confederate flags flying outside houses to this day. It seems like such a ugly but quaint world to me, and one so far removed from my reality that I can look at it with curiosity instead of horror. This movie lives up to its title, even if at first glance the title contains innuendo. The movie is set a night, and the heat is a constant presence in it. Sweat glistening on the character's faces, the sleeplessness, the loneliness (loneliness is often associated with cold night, but there is no lonelier experience than insomnia). There are also some interesting sub-themes, such as the isolation and self-hatred of a white man in the 1960s Deep South. In one scene, the white protagonist confides to Poitier his loneliness and misery, but on receiving an ounce of sympathy he lashes out saying he doesn't need his sympathy, implying that however low he falls he will always be above a black man in status.