Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Finding A Mate

A friend asked me a survey question yesterday that caused me to be very upset with his response to my response...

Friend: "if you choose a guy, you prob choose a stable guy... like maybe in financial aspect... in your own point of view, what is financially stable for a guy....how u define? how much do you think the guy must have in his bank? minimum sum

Me: if i love that person... then finance is something i believe both shd work it out la... i don choose a person based on finance at all... if i want to b tai tai.. i wd have done so long ago la

Friend: you will never answer my question

Me: i cant ans.. cos it's not in my reference for choosing a guy lor

Friend: i think you totally din get my question... how much do you think a guy should have in his bank for rainy days? considering he plans to marry the girl but not yet.

Me: hmn.... i donno how much it is to buy a 3 room flat.. i mean the cash deposit... depend on location lor

Friend: but you can digress until painting what color and all that.... sigh

Me: then i say i want min 3 rm flat.. better?

Friend: nVm

Me: ok la.. if my ans is not acceptable to u.... i have no choice.. but that's my ans lor... mayb u have encountered many gals who want lots of things.. so u don believe my ans


It's sad that some guys have the mindset that all girls are materialistic and when they come across one who isn't, they simply can't believe it. They expect the answers to be 'condo, car, credit cards, cash'. They think that "love and money have become friends and missing either one, a relationship won't work." *sigh*

Anyway, I hope this friend would change his mindset after this. (Btw, he has apologized to me and I have forgiven him.)

Then there are also guys who are perfectionist when come to choosing a mate. It's like searching for that piece of missing puzzle, like what Todd Hertz did in Not That Puzzling. Below is an excerpt of his article, you may like to read more:
My prayer times also helped me realize my psycho puzzle search was keeping me from ever being content. I was just expecting too much—from myself, from God, and from the women I dated. My standards were too high. Of course, I'm not saying we should settle for just anyone—but I wasn't being realistic. By putting so much weight on every little quality of a woman—and by looking so hard for God's signs and the specific qualities I wanted—I could always find something that signaled this wasn't the right piece of the puzzle.

I also realized emotions can't always be trusted. Of course, emotions do speak to us in great ways. Regular happiness, secure comfort, or constant annoyance really do say a lot about the person creating those feelings in us. And God often speaks through how we feel. But momentary annoyance or anger or boredom isn't going to always "mean" something. Not only are emotions fleeting and unreliable, but love isn't immune from those things. My accountability partner at the time asked me, "Do you think I never get angry or annoyed with my wife? Sometimes, you'll be miserable."

What made a real difference in my mindset—and that specific dating relationship especially—was my fourth realization. While I was too busy investigating whether this was the "right" puzzle piece, I forgot that love isn't a puzzle at all. It's not a search for one perfect piece or else all is lost. Instead, it's a mixture of following God's will, finding compatibility, and—the part I forgot—choosing to commit. Dating isn't about finding what you think may be the "right" puzzle piece and then holding your breath through the vows to see if you picked right. It's about choosing well (with an eye to compatibility, chemistry, and God's guidance) and then committing to make it work. Love says, "I'm gonna stick with this even if I'm angry at you. Even if I hate you right now. Even if I'm miserable. Even if I'm bored hanging out with you. I choose to love you."

With that realization, I felt tremendous freedom. No longer was I bound by infrequent emotions or what I thought was the "right" one or not. Now, I could listen wholeheartedly to God, realistically evaluate my compatibility with my girlfriend, and work to make our relationship the puzzle piece that fits.

Labels:

5 Comments:

At 04 April, 2006 21:42, Blogger stuart said...

I guess your friend is right that most gals these days are very practical about love. Those like yourself, who believe fully in love more than wealth, are on the decline.

That's one very important aspect of you that attracts most guys. I maintain that whoever can win your heart is a very lucky guy.

Wish you happiness. :)

 
At 05 April, 2006 00:23, Blogger Richard said...

This is reminiscent of an earlier post you had (but I can't find it) about a guy who's love was unrequited because he was not wealthy enough. Anyway ...

I am disturbed by the notion expressed by your friend that HE has to have the money for the woman. A Marriage is about commitment and sharing. I do not regard the money in the bank as my money or Sofia's money - it is our money. (of course, we still have discussions over who contributed what and how the mnoney should be spent. sigh)

A marriage is about creating a shared life with a shared vision and dreams and goals worked at and achieved together. It is not about the guy keeping his wife happy with money. Brings to mind the Fat's Domino song: "Ain't That Just Like a Woman"

You can buy a woman clothes
Give her money on the side
No matter what you do
She's never satisfied


(I wonder if he was singing about singaporean women? ;-)

The funny thing is that I never went out with a girl to evaluate her potential as a mate - so her status, married, seeing someone, or single was never a concern for me. Hmmm ... maybe I do things differently from most.

My purpose was always to have fun, get to know the person better and, hopefully make a friend.

I cannot imagine it being fun to go out with someone, if all you are doing is critically examining them. Enjoy them as a person rather than a piece of meat on the auction block.

I can't deny that thoughts of suitability might creep in - but, it takes time to know a person, so you might as well enjoy being friends first.

Hmmm ... so your minimum standards for a guy are a 3 room flat ... you realize that if it was me interested in you I would expect you to contribute to 1-1/2 rooms (or your ability to pay based on income - depending on how we negotiated)

 
At 05 April, 2006 02:05, Blogger BeTheMan said...

Ah don feel upset juz because he couldnt agree wif u...
isn't it wonderful that the world is full of unique people? Cherish the friends around you as they are, you can't find the same friend twice. ^_^ aftr reading this posting, i am pretty amused with a strong sense of deja vu...

 
At 05 April, 2006 09:59, Blogger buzybee said...

Hey Richard, this is a different guy from the one I mentioned last time. So you see the second one thinking that way already.


David, do u also think the same way as my friend? Your "deja vu" feeling is on which part of my post? On the materialistic gals or the article about puzzle?

 
At 05 April, 2006 11:20, Blogger BeTheMan said...

nah, BB, i don share your friend's point of view. The dejavu part god nothing to do abt the issue at all, dear~~~ If u could recall there was one time u too think i didnt ans straight to a question tat u'd asked... :)

 

Post a Comment

<< Home