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.