The unrealistic expectations of modern dating

A parent had a casual chat with me and mentioned their adult son who has decided to forego dating as he feels it is "not worth it". This attitude seems to be a recent development in dating dynamics overseas, but to hear that young men here are of a similar mind, it's worrying. If we are trying to encourage breeding among our young couples, perhaps incentivizing already married couples to procreate is too little too late. After all, if young people aren't dating in the first place, nobody's getting married.

Of course, I'm speculating and overgeneralizing here, but it seems that dating, marriage, and babies require more money than people are willing to spend on them, hence the PM's Budget proposal. But we need to examine the problem at the root. PM Wong isn't allocating any budget to encourage dating, the first link in the ball-and-chain of marriage and family, but I doubt throwing money at this problem will solve anything, anyway.

What I think has gone wrong with dating today is not the money per se, but the expectation that young men have been priced out of the dating market. In the past, couples knowingly believed in the romantic fantasies of 'love at first sight' and 'love conquers all', meaning that even if we were broke, the couple would still find something to do without breaking the bank. That was how it was with me and the wife in our early days, especially in the year she had an income, and I was living off my rapidly diminishing savings. Today, dating has transformed into a transaction. No more 'love at first sight', aspiration has mutated into the expectation of 's_x on first date'. There seems to be an understanding that the man will pay for an expensive date, but if he doesn't get to round the bases after that, he feels cheated, having been used for a free meal, drinks and entertainment. Meanwhile the ladies invest in themselves to look their best on the date, hoping to entice their partner to become so smitten by their stunning appearance that wallets gape open, spewing money everywhere. "If a man can spend so much money on me, it must be love", but because of the transactional nature of the date, it's like the more money he spends, the less she feels cheap and the more she feels like a princess when it's time to seal the deal.

Young men, of course, don't earn enough to pay for many extravagant dates, so they don't even bother approaching women, while young women get asked out by older gentlemen who have built up enough resources to lavish their dates with the level of luxury expected. But once the old, rich guy has had (and paid) for their fun, they'll take their business elsewhere. No commitment, no baggage, just the endless thrill of "love 'em and leave 'em". Women are left bewildered and frustrated, being ghosted by the man who demonstrated love by showering them with material blessings the night before, and now they no longer believe that love is forever. Everybody playing this game eventually develops trust issues, it seems. Not exactly a solid foundation to build family on.

If it is true that the dating pool today is messed up by everybody's unrealistic expectations of what the dating ritual is supposed to accomplish, then it's going to take an attitude reset, and not necessarily mo' money, that will get the human population back on track.

TIFO: how to appreciate a sundae

Whenever we go to Swensen's for ice-cream, the wife will invariably order her Coit Tower sans strawberry and hot fudge sauce toppings. I always assumed that she didn't like strawberry and hot fudge toppings. Today, she ordered the same thing, but the order got garbled in the kitchen. Both our sundaes arrived sans strawberry and hot fudge toppings. Small error, so I let it go. As I dug in, I realized what the wife had known for the last couple of decades of being married to me: ice-cream sundaes taste so much better without the intrusion of oversweet flavoured sauce toppings that are only added on as eye-candy, but overwhelm the subtler and more varied flavours of the ice-cream underneath. The brightness of plain vanilla blending with rich chocolate awoke in my mouth, and now I know what I've been missing all this time we've been going to our favourite San Francisco-themed dessert joint. From now on, it's going to be naked sundaes. Less is truly more.

Cake in a box

He hears, "put the cake in the box."

She means, "putthecakeintheboxthatIgotfromDaisobutdon'tteartheoriginalpackagingwhichhasinstructionsonhowtousetheboxproperlyandbesidesIwanttogivethewholethingtoCousinSallyasaChristmaspresentsopleasemakesureIcanresealthepackagingsoitstilllooksintactandnotlooklikeit'sbeenopenedbefore."

He puts the cake in the box.

She goes ballistic.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Love and marriage

A realization arising out of a classroom discussion over the topic of marriage:

If two people are in love, then they will remain committed to each other regardless of whether they are married or not. Which means that marriage exists to ensure that two people stay committed to each other even after they fall out of love with each other.

So, marriage is like an insurance policy that operates in the background while we are lovey-dovey as a couple, but kicks in once we can't stand each other any more.

Marriage is certainly not a decision to be taken lightly, if so.

V-day dinner company

Valentine's Day and we're passed out on the living room carpet semi-watching yet another HK lawyer drama serial. It's been a long, busy week for both of us and to be able to just do that is luxury enough.

Now that she's working for a charity NGO, she's starting to involve me with some of her work. Earlier this evening, we took a little time out to eat a simple dinner with the old ladies boarding there. For a treat, she got me to bring over a couple of tubs of Neapolitan ice-cream for them. They seldom get ice-cream, so they were quite appreciative of her thoughtfulness.

All-in-all, this V-day has been quite special. No gifts to each other, but a small token that didn't cost much given to others from the both of us. Dinner was hardly romantic, but there was a different kind of warmth around the table for more than two. Special, indeed.

Love and the Singaporean

What's up with all these sex scandals surfacing thick and fast in the media this year? Teachers, principals, uni profs, senior civil servants and parliamentarians: respectable people all, yet publicly disgraced because of some indiscretion causing the affair to be outed for the moral majority to tut-tut over.

Can we really be so shocked that people in our midst would jeopardize promising careers and social standing over some illicit hanky-panky? Perhaps these cases are an indication that our puritanical state is starting to show cracks in the facade we've so meticulously maintained until now and we're finally seeing that biology is a much stronger force than we thought we could control.

Romantic love washes the brain over with a cocktail of chemicals that messes up the logical thought process. The feel-good sensations one experiences when one is in love encourages living for the moment; the sense that nothing else matters; and -- most importantly -- reckless, risk-taking behaviour. Hence, people with the most to lose are also likely to be the biggest risk-takers regarding matters of the heart.

Here, I'm confused because on the one hand our population is suffering a baby-dearth while on the other, we're criminalizing behaviour that gives rise to more babies. Could this strange dichotomy be at the heart of our population problem -- that the people we marry are not the ones we are in love with?

Before you overreact, let's think about the common Singaporean courtship ritual. It's planned, organized, structured. The proposal comprises making plans to purchase public housing for the couple; the wedding is a programmed event that follows a generally predictable order of must-dos scheduled to the second; child-bearing brings a new round of planning; while child rearing likewise follows a narrow, set pathway or bust.

If love is reckless and encourages risk, the Singaporean marriage pact is hardly that. Without allowing room for the chaos of romantic love, the Singaporean couple isn't likely to change its plans regardless of whatever "baby bonus" is thrown at it. And if wild, crazy romantic love isn't found in a Singaporean household, is it so surprising that dissatisfied partners may be finding it elsewhere, in more dangerous places, with more disastrous consequences?

A celebration of "Decade-nce"

Congrats to Jo and Derek who are celebrating their 10th anniversary with a luncheon at The Wine Company. This rather unflattering pix shows one table of us colleagues all busy stuffing our faces.

The menu was pretty decent, starting with a seafood bisque that was rich in crabby flavour. The pix shows us chowing down on the Caesar salad topped with crabmeat. The main course was a thick slab of fillet mignon which I was looking forward to. I ordered rare but it was served done on the more... conservative interpretation of the word, shall we say? Dessert was a baked Camembert which was nothing I'd expected in generosity -- a whole wheel of Camembert baked over apple slices in a caramel sauce. The whole thing was thick and melty, and so good. But there was no way I could eat another. One serving was quite enough.

It was fortuitous to be at this particular table as we were short of one diner, which meant more food for the rest of us since the number had already been catered for and we didn't want be responsible for any wastage.

The event itself was quite an easy-going affair. Jo renewed her vows in the style of "Green Eggs and Ham" while Derek's was more conventional but culminated in  a surprise presentation of a huge bouquet of flowers. Otherwise, the guests were left to their own devices and entertainment... mostly. The finale involved a lucky draw, prize winners having to dance "Gangnam Style" or shuffle with "Party Rock Anthem" in order to claim their gifts. Fortunately, there weren't too many gifts and our table wasn't particularly lucky. Wait, does that mean we were lucky or unlucky?

Anyway, Mr and Mrs Lee, 10 years under the belt and many more to come!

Billy the Exterminator

You know you're the man o' the hoose when you've been summoned to the bathroom to evict the unwelcome house guest. Subject in question: a tiny baby lizard scampering about on the counter-top.

Eviction tool of choice: 1 x sheet of box tissue paper

Methodology: throw paper over lizard, quickly bundle it up for transportation out of the premises.

Rationale: avoid inadvertently applying excessive grip pressure on subject, causing potentially fatal squishing.

First attempt: FAILURE. Subject wriggles free from cellulose enclosure and suffers a long drop to the floor.

Unforeseen circumstance: URGENT! Subject Momo lurking unnoticed under the bathroom counter lashes out with a forepaw, effectively pinning Subject Baby Lizard underneath.

Remedial action: Use left hand to fend off Subject Momo and distract her from Subject Baby Lizard. Right hand  repeats capture procedure. Probably stunned by the fall and subsequent non-fatal squish, Subject Baby Lizard offers no further resistance.

Eviction procedure: SUCCESS! Eviction notice served and executed. Subject Baby Lizard transported to Front Door and released into common corridor where hopefully it will live out the rest of its life without making a return trip.

After Action Reflection: Odd that instead of feeling scared of Subject Baby Lizard, I was more afraid FOR it. With three cats in the house, few lizards get a second lease on life. This one was one of the lucky ones.

The marriage equation

Responding to NBS's post on 'Soulmates', we often have the misconception that in marriage the equation works out as 1/2 + 1/2 = 1, by which we assume that we are incomplete until another completes us. That's not going to happen. A person who only feels like 1/2 and seeks an identity in another is going to be disappointed that the perfect "1" will always seem elusive, unattainable even.

Marriage is more of a 1 + 1 = 2 situation -- a partnership of 2 complete individuals who are different from each other, but preferably in a complementary way. Because marriage comprises 2 complete individuals, staying together is a constant choice they must make with every obstacle or difficulty they encounter as a couple.

Kids add a further complication. They cannot be expected to be complete in themselves until they leave to build their own nests. So, 1 + 1 + x/2 = 2 + x/2. Chaos ensues.

According to Me

According to you
I'm difficult
Hard to please
Forever changing my mind
I'm a mess in a dress
Can't show up on time
Even if it would save my life
According to you
According to you

But according to him
I'm beautiful, incredible
He can't get me out of his head
According to him
I'm funny, irresistible
Everything he ever wanted
Everything is opposite
I don't feel like stopping it
So baby tell me what I got to lose
He's into me for everything I'm not
According to you

Sorry, Orianthi, but According to Me,
assuming you've been in the relationship long enough, the one who truly loves you is Mr "you". Mr "him" is only out to exploit your gullibility and cheat you of your money, your goodwill, and anything else you might have of value. And that's all.

There's nothing like being taken well and truly for granted to know that your relationship is secure. See, when "you" complains about you, it's because "you" is prepared to see you for what you really are -- and what you are not. "You" no longer needs to pretend to be head-over-heels in love (that's a tough act to maintain for long, anyway). Likewise, there's no more pressure on you to keep hiding your flaws from "you", yet "you" is still by your side, still your man.

The only thing that's going for "him" is a sweet tongue -- and most likely a sweet tooth to go with it. Once he's got past your wrapper, he'll just suck you dry and spit you out when all the sweetness has gone.

So, Orianthi, ma'am, catchy song, but Me isn't buying your little tantrum.

Dual income

My wife works and I stand to gain more from this financial arrangement between spouses, according to the Pew Research Center. But that's basic mathematics [2(income)/x(dependants) > 1(income)/y(dependants), where y>=x], isn't it?

But my puzzlement is more regarding the question of why when more women are getting an education more men are not, and when more women are entering the workforce more men are losing their jobs? That's what the numbers are implying... or am I reading them wrongly?

Assuming gender bias isn't clouding my judgement, it seems that on the whole, men and women don't like sharing gender roles. When women started moving into once male-dominated areas, the guys quit the field. Whether in education or career, work or housekeeping, the main trends point to an either-or proposition -- one gender occupies one domain, the other gender occupies the corresponding domain.

But it's still too early to see if this revolution will result in a complete reversal of our traditional gender roles. Probably not, I think, but in the meantime I'm not going to be an old-fashioned patriarch about it. My wife works and our combined income makes for a more comfortable lifestyle for both of us than I could provide for myself on my own. Can't see anything wrong with that.

Ten years

June and I have been married exactly a decade as of today. We marked the date quietly. No big celebration, no big fuss, just a simple dinner at a restaurant we didn't even have to make reservations for. Dinner for two.

What was disturbing was on our way home, we walked past a couple who were not behaving as couples do, or even should. The girl was seated on the ground, nearly slumped over, back against a wall of a void deck of our neighbouring block. The guy was bent over her, hands at her throat. Clearly, they'd been fighting.

We stopped and made it clear that if anything untoward was to occur, we'd be on hand as witnesses. When they saw us just standing there watching everything, the guy acted like he was helping her stand up. But then she called out, "help me!" instead. So we both marched over to make sure she was all right. We weren't alone. Another fellow joined us, and together we put it in no uncertain terms that the guy's behaviour was unacceptable. June went so far as to make a 999 call, but at the girl's urging we did not press the matter.

After sorting things out between them (apparently alcohol and adrenaline do not a good cocktail make), we let the girl depart in one direction and made sure the guy left in the opposite direction. I doubt that would have been a long-term solution for the two, but at least I hope the guy will think twice about abusing his girlfriend again, knowing that the public will not stand for this sort of nonsense, and is willing to take serious action if he does.

There are things men do not do to women (or children, or animals) and it thoroughly pisses me off when I even hear reports of such things happening. To actually see such abuse with my own eyes, in my own backyard... dammit, we're supposed to be better than that.

Anyway, that was our 10th anniversary. An interesting present, then, from above.

Official propaganda

I must be getting old. That's probably why reminders of human mortality seem to be drawing my attention these days. But so far (thankfully) it hasn't been Death itself that's been holding my fascination but rather the celebration of the life lived that has.

This MCYS vid is especially fascinating because it portrays one possible interpretation of the paradox posed in 2 Cor 12:9, which declares that God's "power is perfected in weakness" -- something of a head-scratcher if we just look at the verse out of context.

Love's the same. It's the imperfect that needs love most, and love's best function is when it upholds the most imperfect.

I don't often compliment official propaganda, but this one has got it right for once. It doesn't mean I'm about to start a family right away, but I appreciate the message.

Girls and gaming

When I was considering a marriage partner, one characteristeric of the girl of my dreams was that she would enjoy video gaming as much as I did. I could see us pairing up online and adventuring together, hacking and slashing our way to wealth and glory, at least in the virtual world.

June, who I married, is no gamer. All our adventures have been in the real world, and online I still game solo. That is, until she discovered PS on FB.

PS is a game she plays online with her FB friends. It's partially a home-builder's dream in which a key objective is to furnish and decorate the player's virtual home with all the splendours of opulence as the player can afford with the credits earned through playing the game. The player's avatar likewise gets decked out with the the rarest and most lavish couture and accessories virtual money can buy. In a sense, it's transferrance at work: our materialistic fantasy life actualized through a game that rewards pro-social behaviour and a keep-up-with-the-jonses motivation for keeping gameplay fresh and active.

Because of the competition to accumulate wealth, there has developed an almost real-world economy for the game world. Real people -- friends and strangers -- are talking to each other through an online forum inquiring, offering, trading, begging, basically bartering virtual items for the rarer and more in-demand commodities. That, I guess, is where the real fun is.

Now June and May have plunged themselves into the PS game world and are now serious traders in hard-to-acquire goods. It started with a stroke of luck in running across a hot item and making a good trade, spinning off enough capital to seek out more... rinse, repeat, make more profits.

Oh, and I get to help out too, questing for stuff they are likely to sell, and because they are the more market-savvy ones, I leave the selling to them.

So I've got my wish, after all. My wife and I are in a non-violent adventure to acquire obscene amounts of virtual social standing and commensurate ostentation, though I'm kinda' missing the gore and tension of a more visceral survive-or-die struggle. Still, it's a start.