So, you are still not married. Seems some times in the Bloggernacle, 50% of the posts are about being single in a married Church. I didn’t get married until I was 29, which is probably not long enough to have a full perspective, but I wanted to post my thoughts.
I’d like to start with some examples.
I knew a guy, I’ll call him Jammin (Jam for short). He was strong and tall, but not quick (so he could not play basketball or football – not quick enough, trouble with powerlifting, too tall). He wasn’t as good looking as he thought, and not as smart as he needed to be. He had a thing about really pretty girls. Of course the only really pretty girls that would date him were ones with problems that off-set their being pretty. He couldn’t figure out why he was always dating girls with serious problems, how come he always ran into the ones that turned out to be scary?
It was simple. He wasn’t good looking enough to be a good match or fit for that group and did not have off-setting qualities (dating sites show that you can exchange money, education and other things for good looks if you are a guy). So, if you were a pretty girl, you probably had some pretty serious negatives before you would date him.
I knew another guy, I’ll call him Loser (Lou for short). Lou liked really pretty girls. He liked pretty girls who could think. He invariably picked them up on the rebound after a bad break-up, he wasn’t pushy. They would drift away as they recovered. Mostly they remained friends, and interestingly enough, formed a group of ex-girlfriends of Lou’s that enjoyed each other, just not him. Lou couldn’t understand why he couldn’t hold on to the kind of girls he was dating. Now he is old enough that he is kind of skeevy vis a vis the girls he would like to date and has burned some bridges as well.
His problem is pretty simple. He has little to offer (less now that he is older) other than a non-threatening supportive ear and friend-style dating. But no one in their right emotional mind sees him as dating material for romantic dates.
Both of these guys were not matching what they were to what they were chasing. Both of them had long histories of failed relationships. Jam succeeded by breaking free of his blinders. Lou is, well, there is a reason I called him Loser.
We probably all know a Lou and a Jam. Thinking about them will help provide some context on how people look for love, and don’t find it.
This is kind of a harsh introduction. I knew a guy who told the same story, more or less, except it was about a girl who chased football players and another who chased drummers.
Too many people think that the moral of the stories is that you have to “settle” for less than you “deserve” or “want.” That’s wrong. What you have to do is find who you match.
Some things make it easier. If you are a guy, go to New York City. There is a surplus of single women in New York City. If you are a woman, go places where there is a surplus of men.
Next, go places where people are looking for people like you. I had a friend, Martha Muriel who was pretty and a dancer. She went to a ward full of short professional men and tall models. The men all wanted a short model (which, of course, wasn’t going to happen, there is a minimum height for models after all). The women were all looking for tall professionals (which group, it turns out, is mostly already married). None of them were looking for Hispanics, more their loss. Martha left after a couple visits, she was much too smart to waste more time there. The people there were looking in the wrong places.
There are things that look like problems, but that are not. They are matters of fit.
In addition, it is easy enough to have huge blocks of time consumed by a failed relationship. Though finding yourself 40 and single whether through divorce, death, or just never getting married can be much the same.
The issues are similar for both men and women. In some areas there are too many men, in others there are too many women. This is true of physical locations as it is of areas of interest (you trying to become a doctor’s spouse or snag an unmarried professional athlete? There are a lot of people in those areas). Some areas have huge pools (so the chance of someone in your sub-pool goes up) some have very tiny pools (if there are only three guys and three women in an area, the chance of a close match has probably gone way down).
Finally, what do you use as a filter? What things do you use to exclude? Every “hard” barrier will limit you. For example, my wife is taller than I am. If I had insisted on someone shorter than I was, I would not have married her (and vice versa – luckily we fell in love before we realized the height issue). Or suppose you automatically filter out Hispanics or red heads or …
All of these matters taken together means that it is very, very possible for someone to never find a match without it being their fault and without anything being wrong with them.
Possible issues:
- Geography. Sometimes it is just bad luck where you live or where your education goals take you. You can find yourself in a place where there just is not anyone to date or marry.
- Bad luck in relationships. Not all relationships succeed. However, each time you invest time and effort in a relationship it puts you a few more years down the road.
- Looking for the wrong solutions in seeking a match. Mostly that is idiot guys looking for unrealistic physical attractiveness in women, but there are other things that come up. I knew a guy at BYU who was in his 30s. He knew every “perfect” girl on campus, but could not find someone who was both gamin and zaftig, both blond and black haired, etc. There were too many types of “perfect” for him and he wanted someone who fit all of them — including those that were contradictory (you are not going to find a woman with waist length hair in a pixie cut …).
- Filter issues – excluding on the wrong things. Which does not mean you should ever, ever give way when you are filtering for the right things. But I’ve met people who only wanted a spouse with a full head of hair and a willingness to dance.
- Other gap creators (there are things that make a match more difficult. Age, personal interests, political tastes, etc.). If I insist on someone having a taste for neogothic as a filter, it is going to be harder to find a match.
Note that the most common issues do not require anything to be wrong with someone. Being “squirrely beyond belief” and crazy is not something that keeps people from being married (would that it were so – I know lots of people in that category, some who have been married multiple times). That is, there are lots of legitimate reasons people should not be able to find a match that do not seem to stop them at all.
Solutions:
Well, that is an entirely different thing. You have to start by asking yourself just what are the real things you want and the real deal killers? Then, list why they are what you want and why they are deal killers (e.g. the thing you have against New York Republicans would apply to old fashioned southern Democrats and would make you fine with Arnold Schwarzenegger Republicans). Many things that are deal killers in one culture are advantages in another.
For example, women with children from prior relationships. In some cultures, a man will not marry a woman who does not have at least one child. I know two specialist MDs who found themselves looking for a second marriage in their early forties. Both married women with children and would probably not have married the women but for the children, who have made both of them happier.
Then re-think a focus, a way to look at life. You might start working at a Starbucks (comprehensive insurance for all employees)(and, if you don’t drink coffee, a wonderful place because you aren’t tempted to waste your money at work – I had a good friend whose wife worked at Starbucks until last year). From there you might move to a Starbucks in the area where the other sex is in surplus. Or a place where there are a lot of people in your interest area (you might not head to Brownsville if your interest area is skiing, for example). It can be surprisingly easy to change things, if you really want change — and surprisingly hard if change is not worth it to you.
Finally, consider and reconsider your goals. I used to be a game designer. I was good enough that Origin cold called me to offer me a job. But, designing games is no longer a goal of mine. There is a time and there is a time. My goals are different now, I let myself grow into new ones, all the better for my skills and time constraints. Look at your own and think if they have grown with you.
Sometimes the only person you need to love is yourself. Everything can be looking for love in the wrong place.
So what do you think? I’ve obviously only addressed half of what needs to be done. What is the other half?
[This is an extension of a cross post from https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5861130&postID=7422198561179501418. I know, I could have posted about how to solve the ABM site issues with the Russians, or what makes someone into a man, but I knew no one would be interested. Who cares about politics or maturity?]
Wheat & Tares 
I like your post (and the similar one on your blog) but I do think it oversimplifies it a little. It is true that people with every fault are married, but did they have that fault when they were married, or did it develop afterwards? If they did have it, was it obvious?
There is also the problem with numbers. I’ll use me as an example. I’m almost 32, divorced and with two kids under the age of 5. I’m also active LDS with a definite testimony, I have opinions about things, and I’m reasonably intelligent. I will not (again) marry someone who is not equally strong in the church and in faith on his own merits. So let’s start with a pool of 100% active, sane LDS men in my age range, we’ll say quite generously between 28 and 40, with some fuzzy area beyond that. (Which is already sort of a slim pool anyways.)
Now let’s take the ones who are willing to marry a divorcee with kids. A generous estimate drops us down to half the original pool.
Let’s say that I want someone who not threatened by my opinions, education or other. That probably cuts the already halved pool another 10%, generously speaking. We’re down to 40%.
Now take someone who is willing to commit to a marriage relationship. Down to 20%, at least.
I want someone who will not leave me to do all the work, but is willing to pursue a mutual relationship. That probably takes us down to 10%.
Financial stability (not rich, just frugal) probably leaves us 5%
I’m sure you can see where this is going. Granted, my numbers are made up, but they’re probably quite generous. I haven’t even dipped into the finer details of compatibility. I’m only talking bare minimum requirements. I compromised on most of those issues the first time around and, quite bluntly, there isn’t anything in marriage that makes it worth my time if those bare minimums aren’t met.
And, once we narrow it down to one out of twenty active LDS men in the right age range, chances are good that they are also frustrated with the fake YSA-like bubble of mid-single LDS dating and scary, relationship-vampire women, and are at home doing grown-up things, rather than wasting time with the parade of dances and volleyball activities.
So your answer—to change something to find the right sort of people—is not an easy one to implement, unlike you suggest. The best answer I’ve heard of would be to create more blended mid-single and family wards. There, singles who have grown up, whether they have kids or not, could be treated as real people, and not plugs needing to find sockets. There, as a single person, I could interact with others like me without the false pressure to get married, and maybe actually get to know a person for who they are.
This has been implemented in many places, but not enough places. From what I can tell in my efforts to start something like this here in Salt Lake, there is no church-wide plan to implement this idea on a larger scale.
Which is unfortunate. Maybe there would be more active, sane singles around if it could be, and that one-in-twenty wouldn’t seem like such a hopeless number.
I’d say your thoughts are pretty good.
I need to do a follow-up. I’ve been the guy from the High Priests group assigned to the singles.
But I’m serious about the Sometimes the only person you need to love is yourself. [and your children]. Sometimes if you find love, great, but looking for it may not be as easy as some think.
BTW, I’d still love a guest post for Wheat and Tares …
You can love yourself and your kids from here to the next Tuesday on the other side of eternity, and it doesn’t help.
What DOES help is non-romantic, non-pitying, non-let-me-solve-your-“single”-problem regular adult interaction, which is in desperately short supply if you’re living a normal life and sticking to responsible standards. Even shorter if you’re taking care of kids.
Give me a topic, and I’ll write. 😉
Steve,
I think your analysis applies better to men than women in the LDS culture, particularly. Yes, some of the lessons you list are important for women to learn, too, but it seems as we all age, men have more opportunities in these respects than women do. Having had the High Council assignment for Single Adults, that’s my general observation, but I don’t have any real data to support my impression.
I’d like to know where there is a surplus of men. Basically anywhere in the US, an LDS man looking for an LDS woman will have favorable numbers, some more favorable than others, but is there really anywhere that is true for women?
Also, of course, people who are divorced with children do not have the same flexibility to re-locate, even if they knew of a hot spot that might suit them. Unless they decide to see significantly less of their kids, which hardly seems a wise decision for “better” not very good odds of finding a mate.
Silver Rain–I am sorry that you don’t have reasonable adult interaction. I must admit that I have lots–the women in my ward and stake continue to treat me like a human, and it is a boon for me. Is that what you are talking about, or is it adult male platonic interaction that you lack? For that, I am pretty dependent on my friends’ husbands, but I guess I am lucky there, too–they are good people.
Nah, I’d be fine with any adult interaction. I’ve not really been platonic friends with many boys since I discovered how the majority of them see women. But that’s a whole ‘nother issue.
The women in my ward are either married or much older or both. That is not interaction with people in similar circumstances, and largely lends itself to the aforementioned pity and “problem” solving attempts.
I’m also in a ward with lifelong “natives”—and I am not one—so the circumstances are otherwise highly limiting. But that, too, is a different problem.
Mostly, I’m suggesting a blended ward because that gives mid-singles the best of both worlds. They can live their lives as normal adults, but still meet more people who are single, female and male.
I have a close family member who divorced an active LDS man (he may have been active but was not a good person). She didn’t know he’d turn out that way when she married him. For years after the divorce she struggled to find someone that was active in the church and a good person. The combination was hard to come by. Eventually she settled on someone else and now she is stuck in a similar situation as she was in the first marriage.
So based on this observation (and many others) I would agree that it is harder for a women (than a man) to find a spouse in the church.
I’m not sure what the term is, but I’m heard that because of the shortage of active LDS men, women will go for guys who are far below their “league” so to speak. That is, a guy who would be a 6 normally marries a girl who is a 9 because there are so few options for me.
Just food for thought.
All of these matters taken together means that it is very, very possible for someone to never find a match without it being their fault and without anything being wrong with them.
Possible issues:
6) The Church forbids marriage by reinforcing the state’s monopoly on it when they require a valid state-issued marriage license before performing a priesthood sealing, and also by refusing to marry any person who already has a living spouse — going so far as to excommunicate anyone who tries [even in areas where one could obtain a valid state license for a plural marriage].
I am not friends with anyone in “similar” circumstances: my friends are married and single and older and younger etc. etc. I am not sure what I would gain from friends in “similar” circumstances that I don’t have with true friends of any ilk.
Yeah, people say stupid stuff, sometimes, but I sure do, too.
Anyway, maybe you live someplace where specialty wards exist, but where I live, wards can cover several counties and that’s that. We are lucky to have each other.
I’m not sure whether it holds true in the Church context, but one place there generally is a surfeit of men over women would be Alaska.
ESO—most of the wards I’ve lived in over the course of my life are more like yours and less like my current ward. This is the first time I’ve been faced with pleasant exclusivity to this extent.
And being surrounded by other older single people in the ward would help cut down the judgment in the entire ward, even stake, methinks. Not just in other singles.
At the very least it would give a normal place to go to Church with Primary and normal activities, all of which fit into your normal Church schedule. As it is, if I’m going to attend a singles ward, I can only do it at best part time. So I’m half-committed to both wards, rather than being able to focus my limited resources on one.
What the current setup does is filter for crazies in typical mid-singles wards. Well-adjusted singles want to do things BESIDES troll for mates, things that any other adult would do, NOT so much things that work well for 20-year-olds. Even many of those in their 20’s would appreciate more real-world activities and discussions at Church.
Just let me lead a normal life but blended with the opportunity to meet more other singles, so I can feel less isolated. Sort of a “don’t try to fix me, I’m not broken.”
If anything, I’m MUCH less broken than when I was married.
I think I get what you are looking for, I just don’t see an LDS population large enough to have sufficient numbers of people in our boat to warrant our own ward. It just isn’t feasible for most of the world, so I guess that is why it is good I can dismiss it–it will never happen here.
All the best, though.
That’s just it, ESO. You don’t need tons of members. That’s the point. It’s a regular family ward, but it’s a mid-singles “focus” ward, too. All you really need is leadership willing to do it.
Of course, that “all” can be a pretty big barrier in some cases. Like mine.
You can read more about it here: http://midsingles.wordpress.com/midsingles-program-outline/
Kevin, my good friend lives in Alaska. They have a saying there regarding the surplus of men over women: the odds are good but the goods are odd.
I must agree with what’s already been said about there being fewer opportunities for LDS women to marry in the faith than LDS men. I believe it’s been pretty well documented that there are significantly more active women than men in the church (and in other churches, as well)–in the US and abroad.
And to #8: That is SO a thing, especially at BYU.
I would agree that it is harder for a women (than a man) to find a spouse in the church.
That is the truth in most areas.
I think the comments are much better than what I had to say, all in all.
What the current setup does is filter for crazies in typical mid-singles wards. Well-adjusted singles want to do things BESIDES troll for mates, things that any other adult would do, NOT so much things that work well for 20-year-olds.
Yes.
That’s good advice. I agree that it’s not so much a question of “settling” as it is filtering on the right things. I wrote a similar piece last year: Finding Love 101.
Not bad Chanson, missed that one.