It’s not a secret to most of you that I’m on the look out for love. I like being with somebody, sharing life, all that good stuff.
I spend a lot of time though, worried that I want it too much, that I’m holding off being happy until it happens. I reassure myself. If I was that desperate I would have just got on board with the first guy who showed me some interest. But no, I’m looking our for the right guy, right?
Which is why this message from an OkCupid user helpfully named ‘controllingdude’ really ground on me:
“Firstly, I like that you’re a logical person. More attractive to me though is that you’re more introverted and old fashioned than average and very driven by love. I also find that you’re much less independent than most attractive and love that you’re not obsessed with sex.
To be blunt, when it comes to relationships, I have a dominant personality. Based on the data available to me, it seems like you have a submissive personality and are someone that likes to please her man and make him happy. I think a lot of girls would find such a statement outright sexist, but I both hope and believe that you do not.“
Ugh. Not what I needed. But, I realised, this message isn’t about me. It’s about what a douche that guy is. So, finally, I crafted a reply today:
“You’ve made several logical errors. As well as misinterpreting the data, you’ve misunderstood, or at least poorly researched, the meanings of some words.
Where to start. I’m not sure if it’s you or OkCupid’s ‘extremely scientific’ metrics that have me pinned as not very independent, but I live on my own, support myself, and, as I state in my own words on my profile, am ambitious in my career.
You seem to have mistaken introverted for meek. Introvert, in psychology: “a person characterized by concern primarily with his or her own thoughts and feelings.” I think that’s the opposite of what you’re seeking.
Like I said, you have misinterpreted. Likely it’s a logical error based on something like confirmation bias, assuming you’ve found what you were looking for and moulding your interpretations accordingly.
I’ll leave the final word to a friend’s comment when I posted this to my facebook:
— I appreciate how his solution to having a “dominant personality in relationships” is not “gee, I should do something about this detrimental character flaw,” but rather “find a submissive woman who is into that.” —“
He replied saying that I was very rude, and that it was not a flaw, that he wasn’t hurting anyone, and expounding another logical error, saying:
“Is there something inherently wrong with being submissive? Sure, plenty of women may think it puts them back decades of progress by making them look bad, but is that person actually flawed? Is there something inherently wrong with being submissive? Sure, plenty of women may think it puts them back decades of progress by making them look bad, but is that person actually flawed? Is there something inherently wrong with being submissive? Sure, plenty of women may think it puts them back decades of progress by making them look bad, but is that person actually flawed?“ – I didn’t say the woman was flawed. I said he was. I pointed out I was just as logical as he was, just not in the direction he wanted.
Ugh, love is tough.