For fun and laughter.

"...the stock market and dating. Are they really that different? If you have a bad stock, you could lose your shirt. If you have a bad date, you could lose your will to live. And if the date is good, the stakes get even higher. After weathering all the ups and downs, you could find yourself with nothing. So when it comes to finance and dating, why do we keep investing?"
[Sex and the City, Season 6, Episode 1: "To Market, To Market"]

The September 2003 issue of Female has two interesting male and female perspectives on why men/women go on dates.

For Linus Carnarvon, "a coffee date is just latte and good conversation." But he dreads the woman who treats the date like a "job interview" where "she's not at all fascinated with me or the things that I get up to, but systematically sussing me out ... to see if I pass for the kind of husband that she would like to have at that!" Carnarvon clarifies that he would like to "settle down" too, but "what should matter more to us both is the process of discovering each other. If we can be totally relaxed around each other and have a good time on a consistent basis, it may mean we are kindred souls and perhaps, if it is meant to be, we'll fall in love."

On the other hand, Sasha Gonzales is proud of her "dating agenda" and declares that "going out with guys is a means for women to suss out potential husband material." She remembers when "my sole aim when dating was to just go out, share some laughs, and perhaps snag a kiss at the end of the night. The world was full of eligible young men, and I was hell-bent on having fun with them all". However, after a combination of "edging towards thirty" and reaching a certain place in life, "we don't like being wined and dined for six weeks straight, only to be told by the guy at the end of it that he hates children, has no savings, or just wants to be friends." She adds that "women are a lot more self-assured than we used to be...also more successful...independent...We've worked hard to get where we are, so why should we bother continuing with a date if the guy shows no promise?" Gonzales' concluding statement is interesting: "And, with the shortage of decent and available men in the world today, we need a dating agenda now more than ever."

I would like to think dating is about fun and laughter. And as a bonus, dating could also include the more targetted fun of checking out a potential steady or marriage partner. (Though I wonder if being conscious about the latter might be too much pressure when you just want to unwind, and not have to think about yet another of life's shopping lists, namely, the Husband Shopping List e.g. 1-job (check) 2-car (check) 3-house (check), and so on.)

This means that, yes, I would go out with someone even if he were not my idea of boyfriend (or marriage) material, as long as [1] he doesn't look like my father [2] his colour looks good on me, and more importantly, [3] I think we would have a good time. Not too complicated, nor that tall an order, right?

While I don't discount the possibility that I might discover my soulmate on one such outing (though if that actually happened, I wouldn't even need a Soulmate Checklist, and just follow the beat of my heart), I wouldn't be upset if I couldn't envisage a long-term engagement at the end of the date. What WOULD upset me is if I didn't have a good time AND was bored shitless. Of course, there are worse things, like having to fend off a stalker! Heh.

Unfortunately, the world is somewhat more complicated -- my idea of fun and laughter might not be someone else's perspective on dating. The problem is this: what if the other person were looking for a marriage partner, or thought that I could be his soulmate? Should I continue going out with him -- especially, if I'm quite sure he's only a transit date, until someone I really, really liked came along? Would I be "wasting" his time, or should he graciously accept that he was given a chance, of sorts, to "change" my mind? Or, what if the situation were reversed, and *I* were the one wanting to take things further?

Perhaps, all this sounds weird to you? Why is a 31-year-old woman doing things backwards?! Why is she wasting her time with blanks?!

Heck, I remember telling my ex half-jokingly, in better times, that if he weren't serious about me, he should let me know ASAP, and not after I had lost my youth and "market value". (But maybe, things do happen in reverse.)

Maybe it's the been-there-done-that syndrome, and I already know what it's like (i.e. having a steady). Maybe I've got a better idea of where I stand, what I want, that I'm worth it, and I'm not ready to just commit myself as quickly, or to join the bandwagon and adopt everyone else's idea of what a woman past 30 should do, i.e. get married pronto and settle down.

Oh, don't think I don't want a family; I'm still looking out for that soulmate to share the rest of my life. And that's just it: someone "special". It's not a race against other singletons, to reach that "shortage of decent and available men in the world today" before I really have to go through the dregs.

Now, I don't have a problem with women who marry with the Husband Shopping List in hand -- heck! I've got one too! But I'll sooner go for the Soulmate Checklist. And I agree with Gonzales that the self-assured and successful woman of today shouldn't have to settle for less with a guy who "shows no promise". Certainly, there are "universal" markers of promising men, such as intelligence, personal and financial stability. But I find it ironical that "independent" women like Gonzales are still caught up in society's and everyone else's agenda in life.

Halfway through the rat-race, would any of these women even remember what they were running for? If any one of them trips and falls, would her purpose give her the strength to pick herself up and carry on running?