Mormon Singles Wards: Why We Deserve to Be Treated Like Children

A few months ago, I read the blog post The Infantilisation of Young Single Adults. In a nutshell, this discusses why the author feels Mormon singles are being stunted emotionally by the social opportunities offered them in their respective wards. Many of the things described in this post reminded me of my own singles ward experiences. I have been to singles activities where we played Duck-Duck-Goose (hadn't played that since second grade), crab-soccer (why is it never regular soccer?), and four men on a couch (it's actually pretty fun when you're feeling silly; otherwise it's best reserved for high school kids). But I didn't realize these were common throughout the Church.

While reading the post, I clicked a link to the Activities section of the Church Handbook, and I wondered if the approach of Church Auxiliary leaders towards single members has something to do with this issue. Seriously, based on Church guidelines, my 26 year-old cousin, who was barely a deacon when I left for my mission, is now qualified to chaperone me at Church dances simply because he has already found that special someone with whom to spend eternity. That just isn't right. And some of the other policies and practices by their very existence suggest a mistrust of our judgment. In Boston, our campouts are planned quite extensively, and while we're certainly not required to participate in the service activity, relays, or ward skit, what exactly is the motive behind scheduling all three throughout an entire Saturday?

To articulate the connection here, I should profess my belief in the self-fulfilling prophecy. If you keep believing someone will behave a certain way, they eventually will. In this context, if you keep treating someone like a child, they'll start acting like a child--hence the juvenile activities. But while such policies regarding Mormon singles activities may in fact be patronizing us as well as stunting us emotionally, I'm not sure how many of us are in a position to suggest that we deserve better. Do we really?

For starters, people are cliquish. Whether it's age, looks, clothing, or wealth, when we notice differences, we become just like Dr Seuss's Sneetches. Mormons are no different, throwing invite-only parties where the coolness factor is an issue, repeatedly passing the ball or frisbee to the more athletic types at activities even when the less athletic type are clearly open, and subtly walking away from conversation circles when someone we don't care for has just joined the circle.

Next, we don't know how to interact with the opposite sex, thus suggesting why we're still single in the first place. I currently attend the mid-singles ward in Boston, and while I know several people in that ward who simply haven't found the right one, there are others who make it painfully obvious why it's taking them so long to get married. From blowing each other off for dates instead of just saying we're not interested, to awkwardly avoiding each other following a date, to simply ignoring each other in non-dating social contexts unless we are romantically interested, we act like children around each other.

While I'm at it, I might as well throw in the communication deficit. We don't know how to be straightforward with each other, making promises we know we can't keep and then avoiding one-on-one situations with them while hoping they'll practice some decorum by not bringing it up in public settings. If by chance they do get us alone, we make excuses for why we haven't followed through. And then there are those of us who actually get upset with each other for not detecting these signals. Heaven forbid we should give each other the benefit of the doubt by assuming that our excuses really are sincere.

So what does all of this have to do with the nature of our singles activities? At face value, nothing at all. It would be kind of strange to punish flakiness by planning a blanket fort FHE, but does the full tithe payer deserve the blessings upon which it is predicated if he doesn't keep the Sabbath Day holy? Whatever our Auxiliary leaders' motives are for regulating our activities the way they do, we should ask ourselves whether we truly deserve the trust and reliance we are asking for based on other, seemingly unrelated behavior.

You want to play regular soccer at the next FHE? Are you willing to teach some of the finer points to those who have less experience with the game--as opposed to taking advantage of said inexperience when they end up on the other team? I'm pretty sure that's one reason we play crab soccer instead--because nobody is good at crab soccer. You want to do a hiking activity up in the mountains instead of building forts at the church? Will you do your part to make sure everybody that wants to go--not just those people you click with--has a way of getting there? And if you really want to avoid those dreaded speed-dating activities, maybe you should try dating on your own--you know, the kind that you arrange in person or over the phone (not group hangouts that you arrange via text), during which you act genuinely interested in getting to know the other person, and after which you are able to interact without worrying that the other person wants to marry you.

I can't say whether that will persuade our Auxiliary leaders to treat us differently, while the policy on chaperoning activities may be more of an attempt to help us avoid temptation during such a tenuous stage in our lives. I do know, however, that if we want a leg to stand on when asking to be treated like adults--no matter the context--we need to start acting like adults.

The Swimsuit Video: Why It Doesn't Solve the Problem

Today I watched the swimsuit video that has gone viral over the past couple of weeks. During this ten-minute presentation, actress and designer Jessica Rey promotes her line of modest swimwear by discussing the evolution of the swimsuit, while she also touches on a study done at Princeton on the effects of less clothing on people's thought processes. Specifically, the study showed that women in bikinis cause men to objectify them and develop attitudes of hostility and superiority towards them. For the record but not to digress, there were flaws in this study, as observed in a friend's blog post titled Whosoever Looketh On A Woman. But besides that, Rey is basically positioning her swimsuits as a way for women to allow men to control their thoughts while looking at them.

Interestingly enough, the tagline for Rey's swimsuits is, "Who says it has to be itsy bitsy?" I find the selling point and tagline incompatible with each other. The tagline accurately establishes Rey's pursuit of female empowerment as her reason for giving women a more modest option. I admire this pursuit, as we live in a society that constantly tells women less is more and that everything about them is only secondary to their appearance, especially when it comes to pleasing men. The tagline suggests we shouldn't worry about how others think we should dress. The selling point, however, contradicts that sentiment by implying that women should dress more modestly so as to control what men think of them. So Rey is replacing one method of pleasing men with another. While the two methods are opposite, the objective is the same, and it's a very dangerous objective that we have been trying heavily to eradicate in the recent years.

My friend's blog post rejects the idea of modifying your attire for the sake of other people's self-control (or lack thereof), in favor of wearing what makes you feel comfortable and not allowing the judgements of others to override your own free will. In this post, my friend makes the following statement:

Though it is indeed objectifying to teach a woman that her value lies in wearing fewer clothes and showing off her body so as to turn on the boys around her, it is also objectifying to teach a woman that her value lies in wearing more clothes and covering up her body so as to keep the thoughts of the boys around her pure.

Most of the 240 commenters agreed with this sentiment, but a good portion of them found my friend's approach to be selfish and immature. They saw it as a perpetuation of the "me first" attitude where we should be able to do what we want regardless of how it affects other people. It's as if they stopped reading once they had read the phrase "Wear what you want" and dissected that. The rest of that same sentence urges women to act, dress, and live in a way that makes them happy and allows them to do good in the world, not to live for others. How could anyone argue with that?

Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of modesty and chastity. But I am also in favor of determining for yourself what is modest and chaste. Some guidelines are black and white, of course, but all too often, we make up our own guidelines and try to enforce them on others. Some of the commenters who criticized my friend's post reminded her that while we all have the freedom to make our own choices, those choices have consequences. They said that if you make poor choices, you can't expect someone not to judge you. Yes, that is true, but 1)We should be allowed to accept the consequences of our actions, and 2)There is a difference between judging someone for their choices and persecuting them for those choices as well as trying to force them to change.

When I meet a woman, I do have the right to judge her. I have the right to judge whether she is the type of person I would want to date and eventually marry. I have the right to judge her intelligence and outer beauty. I even have the right to judge her attire as a measure of her moral standards and values in comparison to my own. But once I'm done judging this woman as a potentially positive or negative influence on my life, I have no more rights. I certainly don't have the right to treat her as an object because I have chosen not to control the impure thoughts that have entered into my mind. With that in mind, the only reason this woman should want to dress according to my judgements would be because one of her purposes in life is to please Matt Andersen. After all, our actions in life should be geared towards our own purpose, not someone else's. If you want to please men by wearing a bikini or help them control their thoughts by not wearing a bikini, go ahead. But don't let others tell you that either one of those should be your purpose.

I have enough faith in humanity that most of us know which of our choices set reasonable vs. unreasonable expectations for the reactions of others. But we can't base every decision on what others might think, especially when those thoughts are often not uncontrollable. People just choose not to control them. If we continuously choose our behavior based on what others think, we eventually stop living. That is what I got out of my friend's blog post.

Why Glee Missed the Boat This Week

So I watch Glee. There, I said it. I wasn't sure how to segues into that guilty pleasure of mine, but I felt it necessary to finally bring this semi-addiction out of the closet for the same reason a lot of long-term addictions are brought to light: I think I'm ready to quit.

I don't know, maybe that's just a knee-jerk reaction to this week's episode, but even if I end up forgiving Ryan Murphy and the show's other writers for this mishap, it will always in my mind be a mishap.

If you haven't watched Glee and have somehow dodged the commercials and show promotions for the past four years, it's your high school glee club's answer to Friday Night Lights, only these kids are anything but popular or cheered on by their community. The drama, however, tends to be just as intense and omnipresent, if not more so.

Now that you're all caught up (seriously, the narrator at the beginning of each episode couldn't have done it better), let me tell you what happened this week: Right at the beginning, the school has a power outage, rendering all electric guitars and pianos useless. Since the show must go on, Mr. Schuester (Mr. Schu for short) decides to have the kids perform acoustic songs that week. The objective is for each student to strip down their feelings and let them all out. I'll skip Sam Evans' charming performance of "That Loving Feeling" and go straight to Ryder's performance of "Everybody Hurts." I love REM, I love that song, and I loved Ryker's rendition (though it wasn't entirely acoustic, but what acoustic song is these days?). What I didn't love was the reaction he received from some of his classmates upon sharing his experience with being molested at the age of 11 by his teenage babysitter. Seriously, Sam and Artie's high-five praises and virtual reverence for this achievement of every adolescent male's fantasy was way out line.

Admittedly, this show often uses satire. But in my mind, for satire to be successfully executed, at least two of the following three elements must be present: 1) Believability, 2) Extremism, and 3) Contrast.

Now obviously, believability is essential in any genre of the performing arts. The piece's plot and characters must develop themselves in such a way that their audience buys anything and everything they sell. This is especially critical with satire, which often involves insensitive dialog and behavior that, if not believed to be part of the offending character's nature, could fall on the writers as a tasteless attempt at humor.

This episode did not lack believability. Sam and Artie are teenagers, and their character development has been more than consistent with such a reaction. But what about the element of extremism? For behavior and attitudes to be recognized as satire, they must be extreme in comparison to what we the audience experience on a regular basis. Sam and Artie's reaction wasn't extreme in comparison to the typical attitude present among adolescent males, a population that makes up a substantial portion of this show's audience. Not only that, but many adolescents do not have a fully developed capacity to recognize satire or the attempts thereof. I certainly didn't.

Combine those two factors, and Mr. Schu's immediate yet weak attempt to address the problem is taken by your average teenage male as nothing more than a prudish reaction from an older, out-of-touch generation that doesn't understand how the world works anymore. I can also see Katie's subsequent attempt to reach out to Ryder being perceived as another manipulation tactic from an evil Quinn Fabray protege. I wouldn't be surprised if that turned out to be the case, as I'm not fully convinced she has changed. The only way this problem could have been remedied--if at all--would have been for Mr. Schu to incorporate the element of contrast by revisiting the issue and emphasizing to the kids--especially the guys--that rape is never okay, regardless of the victim and/or offender's gender. But he never did. And the public service announcement at the end of the episode, though wise, didn't do much to erase the attitude the scene may have inadvertently perpetuated.

We need to keep in mind that the double standard that exists between genders begins with our thought process and the extent to which society rebuts it. Our society is out of control in the way we treat each other and ourselves. And it all starts with the way we think. Just like many girls grow up learning to base their self-esteem on the praise they receive for their outer beauty, boys are often taught that "making it" with an older woman is an envious achievement, of which you should never be ashamed. If errant thoughts like these don't get corrected immediately--let alone overtly enough--those thoughts soon turn into the person's schema of the world.

With all that in mind, this double standard cannot be "satired" away by merely echoing it. That's way too subtle. It needs to be imitated in such a manner that places it in a position of contempt. Perhaps not all satire needs to be addressed to that extent, but because it addresses just a small piece of a several thousand-year-old epidemic of gender inequality and stereotypes, this one did.

Like I said, I'm sure I'll eventually forgive Glee for this epic fail. But for now, I'm pretty sure we're fighting.

Communication: I Love It More Than I Love the Guitar

Over the past two weeks, I have simultaneously had the time of my life and been put through the ringer. I've had some experiences that I don't understand, while I've had other experiences that were surprisingly pleasant. Tonight was one such experience, wherein I participated in a dinner group with a few people in my ward--the mid-singles ward that I'm just getting used to after about a year. While I didn't expect it to go horribly, it was in fact at a vegan restaurant, while I have also been skeptical as to whether most people in the CRW--particularly the girls--take me seriously. But it went well, and the food was pretty good. One thing we did to get to know each other better was go around the table telling what we're passionate about. When it came to be my turn, I found myself sharing something that I hadn't realized before, but which has probably been my subconscious passion for years: communication.

Why? Why is it such a big deal to me? Yes I'm a writer, and effective communication is my job, but I've also realized that some of my most difficult experiences in life have been a result of bad communication. For example, tonight I tried calling a girl with whom I previously had a relationship, while we had currently been trying to rectify things. But the fact is that I broke up with her the first time because or her unwillingness to communicate, and things didn't change the second time around. And thus tonight's phone call. Unsurprisingly, she didn't answer, so I left a message saying that I was tired of being treated this way. I said the ball was in her court and that if she wanted to talk about it she should call me; otherwise I was just going to forget about it.

I can give you more examples of me being frustrated by bad communication, such as most of the Facebook threads leading up to the election. Actually, nearly all of my remaining examples come from heated Facebook debates where at least one side is so adamant in its position that they will even use fallacious and sometimes unethical strategies to silence the other side. But that's not how you make things work. That's not how you solve life's problems.

I'll tell you how to solve life's problems: Talk. It's not that hard. Don't yell, don't complain, don't point fingers, and don't shut down when you feel unsure about how to respond when things aren't going your way. The women really do have it right in this respect, which I realize is probably why most of my friends are female. Talking it out is often ridiculed as a waster of time that could be spent solving the world's problems with action. But action only works if people can agree on what that action should be. And you can't agree on anything unless you talk.

I know this is small in comparison to the world's problems, but I have a great example of what good communication can do. I have a really good friend who likes to talk things out--so much so that when I first knew her, I would have told you that she was the most socially anxious person I had ever met. It wasn't until recently that I realized the only difference between her and most other people we knew was her willingness to express herself--her fears and desires, her values, even her paranoia.

Over time, this friend's consistent and uncommon openness has charmed itself into my life and the lives of many others, simply because her honesty about how she views the world on a regular basis only makes the rest of us feel normal for feeling the way we do. She's not mean about it, and she's not overbearing. She just talks. And because she's willing to communicate, her own anxiety has improved drastically, as she has seen how favorably people respond to her. It has been a great example to me. It's probably why I finally stood up for myself tonight without getting nasty. Maybe it will help my ex in her future relationships, or maybe it will help me approach conflict in my future relationships with more confidence and self-respect.

I don't know how to end this, and you may be hoping that I'll connect it to bigger problems like politics or the world's moral decay. I really could, but I don't want to open another can of worms. I will say that most of us have so much bottled up inside that's making us angry because we don't feel like we can express it in a manner that the rest of the world will find acceptable. That is what is killing us. But if we can tune out the rage-filled reactions of those whose opinions really don't matter in the grand scheme of things--or at least accept that most of them are just as scared, disillusioned, and wishful for a better world as we are--then I think we will find a host of people who sincerely want to understand us better as well as be understood better. The only way to find out is to talk.

Election 2012: Whoever Wins, People Are Going to Die

Last night was the first presidential debate between our simultaneously beloved and hated engineer of Obamacare and Ted Kennedy's former unsuccessful opponent in the 1994 Massachusetts senatorial election. According to most polls taken by such credible newscasts as CNN and MSNBC, Governor Romney was the victor, demonstrating an aggressive, take-no-moderation-from-the-moderator approach while our incumbent President seemed to have other things on his mind. Some of us thought it was his wedding anniversary and the uncomfortable couch and/or doghouse that certainly awaited him, but that very same hero who had conceptualized the Internet, thus dragging us out of the Dark Ages that we call the early '90s, generously set us straight, reasoning that Colorado's altitude has been known to impede even a world leader's ability to think straight when answering pre-planned questions that he and his campaign had to approve in advance.

Let me just acknowledge my preference for Mitt Romney for two primary reasons: I like having a strong military and I dislike Obamacare because I'm pretty sure Obama just looked at the European version and thought it was a good idea at the time, not realizing that the system wasn't built in a day--or four years.

But let's be honest. No matter who gets elected this November, life will go on. I must admit that I was an early boarder on the Apocalypse train on November 5 of 2008. I seriously thought our country was doomed and found minor solace in knowing that God's Plan requires things to get worse before they get better. I definitely have my political preferences, but after watching the debate last night and observing each candidate's struggle to be heard in the first of many chances to be heard, I am no longer worried. And here's why:

As a former Institute teacher of mine observed this morning on Facebook, "...both candidates are sincere individuals who want to help this country and its citizens." I don't disagree with that. I believe Romney and Obama both want to make this country better and restore the economy to the boom it enjoyed ten years ago (you know, back when we were only a couple trillion dollars in debt), not to mention the tense yet sincere respect and fear we once elicited from our Cold War adversaries after beating them to the Moon.

The only real difference is how they plan to do it and what their priorities are. One man believes that a world superpower is founded primarily upon a fierce military, while the other seems to think that while it would be nice to be a superpower, it's more important to make nice with leaders that have a history of hating our Godless culture, leaving more money to fund education reform. One man thinks that the way to fix the economy is to remain competitive and reduce taxes as well as Government regulation, while the other thinks the best way is to increase taxes on the wealthy and offer even more regulation and assistance to those who have been hit hard by this recession. One man means to keep healthcare privatized and save Social Security by reforming Medicare and the way in which it is distributed, while the other wants to make healthcare available to everyone regardless of their ability to pay.

Newsflash: Those are all great ideas! The freest, most secure nation has a strong military, is deeply rooted in education and culture, keeps good relations with foreign powers whether those powers hate them or not, encourages its citizens to be self-sufficient, contributing members of society, and takes good care of its citizens by not overcharging them for the right to live without hunger and disease. When Christ comes, that's probably how He'll run things.

The problem is that we are not that nation. I don't know that we ever were. I do know that for years we have been a beacon of light in comparison to the rest of the planet, demonstrating that through hard work and the drive to succeed, man can achieve his dream--even if that dream is as simple as living comfortably in a one-bedroom apartment that sees healthy portions of food on the table three times a day. That is really all we can ask for anymore. We can't have it all, and neither candidate is going to give it all. These days the lot of us are angry because we have deluded ourselves into thinking that we are entitled to everything that would protect us from pain and misery, and when that protection doesn't come, we point the finger at our President, forgetting that our system is set up in such a way that no one person will ever have the power to give to or take away from us what we believe we inherently deserve as American citizens and as human beings.

Instead, sacrifices need to be made--by all of us. Most of us understand that--albeit begrudgingly--but we have our own ideas of what those sacrifices should be. Some believe education should be favored over defense; others believe that education cannot be properly provided by a nation vulnerable to attack by its enemies, so defense should take priority; those who favor public healthcare correctly believe that a strong nation is composed of healthy, well-taken-care-of citizens, while opponents of public healthcare do not hate the poor, but rather they feel that it will dissuade healthcare workers from doing their best in a noncompetitive environment. On the other hand, a good friend of mine believes that we as a nation will gain more respect and deference from the rest of the world if we put more focus on art and culture.

Are any of us wrong? Maybe, but who are any of us to say that it's those who disagree with us? Most of us who say as much don't have any sort of degree that would remotely qualify us to make such a declaration. It is a severe logical fallacy to suggest that because Romney wants to take care of the military first, he hates teachers. On the same token, it would be hypocritical of me to accuse Obama of being unpatriotic for not putting his hand over his heart during the National Anthem, as I have forgotten to do so more than once. So Romney doesn't want to be taxed more just because he has been more fortunate than the average person; would you? So Obama may or may not be Muslim; the Muslim faith is basically peaceful, and besides, he cannot rewrite the Constitution to enforce his alleged faith on the rest of us.

Bottom line: No matter who becomes President, people are going to die because of it. It's just a question of how. Will someone die because he/she is unemployed and can't afford healthcare, or will someone die at the hands of a negligent, overworked doctor? Because while it may be in a minority of cases, one of those scenarios will happen depending on who wins next month. Your candidate will not make you safe from death, disease, starvation, or any sort of danger or discomfort. At the end of the day, each candidate will make mistakes, each candidate will fail in certain areas, and each candidate will break promises. And those shortcomings we attribute to most ordinary human beings will have a negative effect on people, while either candidate's successes will benefit us as well. Don't kid yourself into thinking that one is our savior and the other our destruction. Just do your part to promote the good of all men, and remember that the good of all men does not consist of demonizing one of them.

The Last 10 Months Revisited

I have recently made it a goal of mine to blog more consistently...primarily because I'm tired of burdening my friends with the drama I make up in my head from overthinking just about everything that's not spelled out for me. Maybe that will reduce the stress in my life. But before I begin this post, here's a summary of what has happened in the 10 months since my last post:

I was pursued by my Boston best friend’s high school best friend, whom I had friended on Facebook 11 months earlier, but who hadn’t spoken to me since.

I pursued a girl here in the Boston area who moved in with my best friend and subsequently began dating someone else. After seeing these two people cuddling up to each other outside a potluck, I spiraled into a three-day bout of depression that was only partially mollified when I later saw them at Institute and realized that perhaps they were better for each other and perhaps he had more of the confidence and experience that this particular girl needed in a mate.

In response to my acceptance of the aforementioned relationship, 1) I decided to better myself by becoming more cultured and experienced, which meant reading more of the literary classics as well books on philosophy, religion, art, politics, and art, as well as traveling more; I consequently decided to take a trip to Jerusalem, even if it meant being by myself, and 2) I decided to give the girl in Utah a chance.

I developed a relationship with said girl in Utah and found myself falling in love with her after a couple of months; for the record, however, she said “I love you” first. We also decided to go to Jerusalem together.

This girl visited me in Boston in April, after which she went cold on me, saying she didn’t feel a connection anymore. However, she did not want to break up with me just yet; she wanted to make things work, her definition of which I am still not quite sure, as she rarely initiated any telephone or texting conversations with me and would often not respond to my attempts to contact her. She also decided that Jerusalem was no longer a priority for her, which still creates a bad taste in my mouth whenever I hear other friends talk about trips they have taken there. I had originally planned on going there by myself, but now I’m not sure I can even do that. So much for climbing Mt. Sinai or swimming in the Dead Sea!

After allowing this to go on for three months, convincing myself that I just needed to give it time, I gave into the spiritual prompting that had been bothering me for several weeks in the form of a knot in the pit of my stomach and broke up with the girl. The knot soon subsided. Of course, I wish I had done that before flirting with the idea of moving out to Utah for the sake of the "relationship", which had resulted in me getting rid of my contract where I lived. Fortunately, one of my roommates moved to New York, so I was able to take his contract. Unfortunately, he was a small man, and so is his room in the basement. Now I need to find a new place where I can fit my king-sized bed and where I won’t bang my head on the low doorway, and the options are scarce. I also still need a new job, as the Defense Industry is wearing on me, mostly because, thanks to budget cuts, what I have been doing for the past two years is not what I was hired to do.

Most of my female friends at the Nottinghill House are now dating someone, a phenomenon which I had long anticipated and which therefore motivated me to make more guy friends. Ironically, half of those guy friends are dating the girls at the Nottinghill House.

Despite a previous post saying that I had come to terms with turning 31, I am currently battling some sort of mid-life crisis, perhaps because I feel more of a connection with the people in the LP wards than I do with the people in the CRW. Even after 10 months, I am still the youngest male in my ward. I now understand how Neil Diamond felt in his song I Am I Said. I belong in one place, but I fit more in the other. Sigh.

Oh, and I was diagnosed with ADD over the summer, but I just barely decided to do something about it.

I guess that's enough for one post. I may expound on some of this as it becomes relevant again. But for now, it's more drama than most people would like from a guy, so I'll end here. At least I'm all caught up now.

Does Everybody Play Games?

In reference to my previous post, I would like to suggest that the pressure we tend to feel in our interpersonal relationships is also frequently caused by a third party. All too often, we assume that we know what goes on in another person's mind--simply because that is what goes on in our minds. As a result, we tell each other the appropriate way to behave around a given person--or people in general--even if we have no more experience than the person whom we're advising. This wouldn't be so bad--as opinions add flavor to life--were it not for the advice we often give as a result being 1) very adamant, and 2) based on the assumption that everybody plays games, and therefore so should we.

This is why I don't ask for dating advice as much as I used to. Whenever I do express anxiety over a girl in whom I am interested, most of my friends offer a one-size-fits-all method for measuring my chances with the girl, as well as an ultra-conservative approach on how to behave around her, so as to maximize my chances with her. This particularly confuses me because these friends also claim that 1) girls aren't all the same, and 2) when a girl likes a guy, the guy can get away with just about anything. My friend Jan Marie recently sent me a cartoon that illustrated the second phenomenon. And let's not forget the fact that outside of these specific contexts, we are urged to just be ourselves.

So why do people insist on giving each other ultimate assessments of their relationships at such a volume that leaves little room for disagreement? We often don't even have to meet our friends' romantic interests before presenting our theory as absolute fact. And once again, it might not be so bad if those theories didn't consistently assume that our romantic interests are going to play games with us.

Yes, I understand that if a girl goes several days without responding to my phone call, it's a good sign she's not that interested. But if the same girl reassures me that she is simply busy and would love to go out when she has time, I don't think it's such a big mistake to trust her, not to mention trust how I feel when she offers such reassurance. When we override these initial impressions with generalizations about opposite-gender behavior, we inadvertently undermine our own judgement and self-confidence. That is something I refuse to do.