Writing dating profiles is not an easy task, which is probably why, when you’re browsing dating sites, you come across so many half-arsed, haphazard profiles. Perhaps there’s also an air of ‘I don’t want to look like I’m trying too hard’, but truth be told, I don’t answer messages from content-less profiles, I rarely answer messages from profiles without pictures, and the content has to be pretty outstanding for me to reply if someone hasn’t taken the time to consider their grammar and spelling. So if you do actually want to meet someone, these things are more important than they might appear to be. Which makes writing dating profiles a pain in the ass.

And before all that, there’s the matter of choosing your sites! If you’re anything like me, you won’t want to maintain seven different profiles on seven different sites. I’ve tried a few – Plenty of Fish, Match dot com, Girls Date Free – and when considering layout, ease-of-use, and basic profile set up, I like OkCupid best. Also, it’s not exclusive: you can use it if you’re poly, or open, or if you’re kinky – the community there is quite accepting. Being a kinky person I also feel compelled to be on FetLife, although I don’t particularly think it’s a great place to meet people. However, I use it to remain connected with kinky friends, and I receive a fair amount of correspondance from interested strangers too, which, although largely disappointing, does occasionally bring me something good.

Funnily enough one of the main reasons I joined OkCupid was to test the theory of another blogger. Unfortunately I can no longer remember who it was, but this blogger did a series of posts about how to fill out each section of your OkCupid profile. The advice was interesting, so I wanted to test it. Obviously, over the time I’ve been on the site, I have changed my profile a few times, so I’m not sure how far I’ve transgressed from her original advice, but it was ceratinly a good starting point. I remember her suggesting that under the Favorite books, movies, shows, music, and food section you try not to just list all of your favourite things, but actually write a paragraph about your interests, with particular examples thrown in.

Without going into too much detail, my personal life has shifted somewhat recently, and whilst my profiles used to be very geared towards finding a long-term, monogamous relationship, I am so enjoying being single and (actually, although this is the first time I’ve used this label) a swinger that my profiles really need to be updated and rewritten. So that is what I am doing. In my 18 months of being active on OkCupid and FetLife, I have gathered some tips and advice of my own, so I thought, as I am in the process of rewriting my own profiles, I would share my advice.

When it comes to OkCupid – our site of discussion today, – I cannot stress, enough, the benefit of having a photograph of yourself. Generally speaking, it is nice to see someone’s face as early as possible. And well lit, friendly, welcoming headshots are more enticing than dark, red-eyed photographs of you drunk in a pub. Also, I wouldn’t particularly advise posting photographs of yourself with your exes, as it can be a bit off-putting, and I always wonder if those exes have consented to having their photograph on the site. If you’re non-monogamous, however, a photo of you and your partner(s) might be quite a good idea. But again – ask them first.

As for filling out your profile, well, this is the tricky part. On OKCupid, all the profiles have – on the right hand side – a bar titled My Details. It’s basically a list of all those little but essential details that can be tricky to work into your written profile: ethnicity, height, body type, smokes, religion, education, etc. – you get the idea. Try to fill this out as fully and as honestly as possible. The best way to think of it is as a filter system: if you’re a deeply religious feline-fan, you don’t want to accidentally end up on a dating a raging atheist with a bad cat allergy. I think the parts most people don’t answer are 1. body type, and 2. salary. I don’t think it’s all that important to put your salary down, particularly if you’re not looking for something life-long. But feel free to be honest about it if you’re willing. As for the weight thing: as an overweight girl myself, I can tell you openly and honestly that having ‘overweight’ on my page has meant that I receive much more promising messages than I did when it, somewhat coyly, said ‘a little extra’. It’s much better not to put yourself in a position where people can be surprised into giving you negative feedback. And I have never received any fat-shaming messages that I didn’t provoke by being a real bitch.

All in all, if someone has a very empty My Details panel, I get suspicious that this person is hiding something or just overly secretive about their habits and thus less likely to be open and honest with me further down the line.

When it comes to filling in the bulk of your profile, you are required to write under several different sub-titles. The first of these is My self-summary. This has always been the part I find toughest to write, because if you scroll down the page a little, you will find that everything you might want to put in this section is encompassed by what follows. However, if you’re the kind of person who really dislikes having their profile broken up into these categories, I have seen good profiles in which the person used the self-summary section to write about themselves in full, and left the other sections blank. I’m not sure how this affects searches and matches, – and you may want to check that before you disregared the other sections – but as a discerning member of the OkCupid community, it doesn’t bother me personally at all.

On the other hand, if – like me – you quite enjoy filling out sections and having someone else to guide you in structuring your profile, you might still be faced with the problem of how to fill out this first section. My advice? Keep it brief. If you’re not against using labels, then use them. For a long time, mine simply read ‘Curvy, kinky, submissive, English-rose type, literature student seeks creatively cruel gentleman sadist with good reading voice’ which provided me with some good responses. The point is not to go on for too long – as there are still ten other sections for your visitors to read, – to give some sense of who you are, and some idea of what you’re looking for. Although there is an I’m looking for section of the profile, it is filled out using drop boxes, and may not quite encompass what you want. Furthermore, the I’m looking for section is quite far down the page, and you might want to let people know, straight away, if you’re in a non-monogamous relationship, or if you are only looking for casual sex, etc. It just helps to be as upfront as possible so that you don’t have to deal with a lot of unwanted messages. Not everyone is going to read your entire profile.

I probably update my What I’m doing with my life section more often than I do any other section, and lately I’ve taken to using it as a little window into my life; how I do this is by writing a diverse, prose-style list of all the things I’ve done in the past week, or the main events of the past month. For example, my profile (up until now) has read ‘This week I: went to two lectures; presented a history of the word ‘moon’; carved Bane’s face into a pumpkin; took my little brother and sister to the Science Museum with my best friend; spent an evening listening to people read their erotic fiction at a book launch; began my fourth NaNoWriMo novel; had dinner with three sex-positive friends; cut down on my cigarette smoke intake; started rewatching The League of Gentleman; collected, rode amongst, and stole my brother’s A-level art for my bedroom wall; read book three of Troilus and Criseyde; made and drank a lot of tea; and watched The Blair Witch Project for the first time.’ This not only gives an insight into my activities and interests, but into how I live my life, and who I spend my time with. This is also the section that people mention most when they message me. They’ll ask me about something I’ve done, or share their own interest in the Science Musuem, for example. Most people use it to talk about their interests/work/hobbies, which works well too – but remember, you don’t need to go into great detail: you just need to put enough to spark a conversation. If you tell everything straight away, then there are no questions to be asked.

Moving into the I’m really good at section. I love this section. It allows you to be tongue-in-cheek arrogant, and show off just a little bit. I’d advise that you don’t write too much here; you don’t want to seem overly arrogant. But allow yourself to list a few of the skills you’re proud of. It seems to work well if you have a mixture of common talents – like cooking, or swimming, etc. – and something unusual, or quirky. Have fun with this section and try and think of a few of the odd things you seem to be really good at for no apparent reason. (E.g. – ‘I’m really good at tying cherry stems in knots with my tongue’. Useless but flirty and entertaining.)

I see a lot of people filling out their The first thing people usually notice about me in a really shy or coy manner, which can be a bit annoying to read. People blush enough in real life – I know I do – so doing it in awkward-word form seems like a bit of a waste of time. If you’re not sure what people notice about you, ask a friend. It’s probably something quite simple, and a good friend will frame it interestingly for you too. But keep it brief!

As I mentioned before, I tend to revert to the advice of that blogger, who’s name and blog escape me!, when it comes to the Favorite books, movies, shows, music, and food section. Don’t feel like you have to address all of these things, or that you need to seperate them into their own little sub-sections. Weave them together, and try not to just list. If you’re a fan of feel-good entertainment, then say that, and drop in a few examples that encompass all of the categories. For example: ‘I love happy-endings, laughter, and romance like Four Weddings and a Funeral, and New Girl, and Jane Austen’. It doesn’t have to be quite that brief, but this seems to be a good basic guideline.

Many people have a very personal, and deep relationship with music, so if you feel similarly, you might want to take a little more time over that. (I use iTunes to check my top 10 most recently played artists, which tends to be quite representative of my tastes.) But if you want to leave it in with the rest, you can do that too. The same goes for food. Either way, conveying a general sense of things, and then a few specific examples for people to pull out, seems to work well.

The six things I could never do without section is where you really get to take advantage of your inner list maker. Keep it to six items – it’s a good show of your attention to detail – and make it varied. And I don’t mean list all your various Apple products – ‘1. My iPhone, 2. My MacBook, 3. My iPad, etc.’ – as this would be quite dull and one-dimensional to read. My favourite profiles list something day-to-day (like a favourite brand of breakfast cereal, or the bike you ride to work), something cultural, and something a little bit naughty. This is a dating profile, after all – you are allowed, or in fact downright encouraged!, to flirt.

Another piece of advice that I still use from that aforementioned blogger – and now I’ve mentioned her so many times I’m beginning to think I should do more research and find you a link! – is on the I spend a lot of time thinking about section: her advice is to write it somewhat stream-of-consciousness. So you come up with one starting topic, and then write a paragraph that just follows your thought process. For example, if I took the topic of what to have for lunch, my paragraph might go something like this: What should I have for lunch? I think there’s some bacon in my fridge. Don’t you hate it when the fridge is empty? It’s so disappointing. Like when you have no Facebook notifications for a few days and you wonder WHERE ARE ALL THE PEOPLE?. Actually that’s what I thought at the beginning of 28 Days Later. It was so weird to see London all empty and creepy. I heard that they hired some really hot girls to divert the crowds whilst they filmed that. Or maybe that was some other film…’ and so on and so forth. Mind you, you need to know when to stop too. And it’s okay to insert a bit of cheekiness into it, I just get bored when this section is wholly about sex. It can come across as very one-dimensional.

The On a typical Friday night I am section is just as self-explanatory as it appears to be. Be honest, be playful. I’ve never read this section on anyone’s profile and felt it was miss-judged. If you’re usually out with your friends, say so. If you’re usually enjoying a relaxing night in, say so. If you’re usually engaged in a huge, hot, sweaty orgy – SAY SO. (Mind you, if what you’re usually doing on a Friday night seems particularly disappointing, maybe you can take it as an indication that you need to change your Friday night routine. Or maybe you should describe a different night!)

The section that most people both fill out and side-step is The most private thing I’m willing to admit. I would say that most people answer this with something along the lines of “You’ll have to get to know me a little before I’ll tell you that”. The problem with this answer is it is infuriating! because if it’s too private for you to admit on your profile, then it isn’t the most private thing you’re WILLING to admit – is it? You don’t have to divulge your deepest, darkest secret here. What it actually gives you is the opportunity to share a little-known fact or story about yourself. Admit to your love of children’s cartoons, or tell visitors to your profile about your odd sweet spot. It can be sexual, or dating-related, although I personally tend to prefer it when people are a bit more creative than that.

As I mentioned before, the I’m looking for section is filled out by using drop-down menues. Therefore the best advice I can give, is to fill it out as fully and honestly as possible.

Finally, we come to the You should message me if section. Again, this is a section I find works best when it encompasses some variety. Don’t be shy about spelling out any particular preferences you might have when considering a potential partner, but don’t be a twat about it. For example, I always have ‘good spelling and grammar’ in this section, because it’s important to me, and displays a certain amount of intelligence, but I don’t harp on about it – well, not in my profile anyway. As someone who is kinky, I also include something about that in this section. There’s no point in wading through messages from completely vanilla people if you need kink in your relationships. And again, be playful. Don’t be too serious about this section. Give people the opportunity to start conversations with you. Try to be inclusive rather than exclusive.

And there you have it. Overall, I think the best rules of thumb are to be honest, be welcoming, proofread what you’ve read, and give your profile the attention you’d like to see in the messages you receive. Along those lines, also don’t put anything in your profile that you don’t want people to mention. If you say out-right that you like to be spanked, don’t be surprised when people show an interest in spanking you. You don’t have to put up with people who are really rude or unthinking about it, but be aware that you are inviting some flirtatious comments.

Another rut that many girls fall into is to list all the things they don’t want. This, I’m sure, comes from the huge number of unthinking, negative, miss-judged messages girls open themselves up to online. I don’t want to make this a gender issue, but I can’t say I’ve ever heard similar complaints from men. It just seems to be the way it is. Nevertheless, if you are female, and you have online dating profiles, the best thing to do is to ignore the unsavoury messages, and keep the negatives out of your profile. Nothing is as off-putting as a profile that lists all the things you don’t want. And I say that as someone who has wanted to write that list many many times.

Ultimately, the more complete and friendly the profile, the more likely you are to receive interesting responses. And surely that’s why we’re all there to begin with.

I’ll try and write a companion piece to this one in the next week or so, discussing the far trickier task of filling out a FetLife profile. I can’t promise to have quite so much insight, but I certainly have some tales to tell. FetLife most definitely requires thicker skin…

The post Online Dating: Filling out an OkCupid profile appeared first on (It Girl. Rag Doll).

So what is it about being too mentally conscious that I dislike?

I have a theory, which I have presented it to a handful of people, all of whom – thus far – have agreed: there is something about being human that causes a longing to escape the individual, to be outside the confines of one single body. I suppose you could link this back to loneliness, which is all too common an issue: there can be something deeply lonely about existing in a single, detached skin – which of course, almost everyone does. But whatever the reason for this strong, singular, sense of self, sex seems like the perfect answer. Sex is as close as a person can get to merging with another. It connects bodies – and in many cases feelings too – and allows an individual to immerse himself in shared sensations. I have come across those who would describe sex as ‘two becoming one’. However, I don’t quite buy this idealism.

First of all, unless the two people having sex know each other extremely well, there is bound to be some awkwardness, and that kind of discomfort is felt in the skin: in writing we often come across phrases like “skin crawling” or descriptions of the hairs on the back of the neck, things that are very much to do with personal exteriors. Therefore, unless one or both of the people involved are intoxicated – in which case I would argue that they aren’t really present – it can’t be possible to lose oneself in a stranger.

Despite my skepticism when it comes to merging with someone else, I do believe it is possible to get extremely close. There are times when the soul of a partner seems close enough to touch, when that connection is tangible. But being that close can also have a “so near and yet so far” sense to it. For a person to be able to feel how invested he is in his partner, whilst simultaneously knowing that he can’t ever really touch or become that feeling can make him feel even lonelier; and even if he can invest in that moment and believe it heart and soul, at some point it has to end, and the separation of bodies, the severing of that connection can be devastating.

But let’s consider for a moment: sex is not always such a terrible, lonely experience. For one thing, this deindividualisation cannot possibly be the aim of every person who has ever had sex. Perhaps, for some, it is about asserting their individualism, about touching that edge, safe in the knowledge that on the other side they will still be their particular, whole self. For others, perhaps the connection they feel in that moment lasts: perhaps it spills over into daily life through the security and love they share with their partner. And, surely, there must also be those who find the loneliness and the desperation arousing. Furthermore, I believe there is a good argument to be made for the prevalence of other desires: pain, for example, can have the effect of taking a person outside of their body – or ‘spacing out’ – but the sense of escaping from a singular skin, or at least becoming less conscious of it, does not necessarily mean the individual feels closer to another person; he may simply feel – and want to feel – a lessened sense of self. Then, of course, there are power dynamics where the division between the two may be key to their entire relationship.

But yes – I believe that the desire to lose oneself completely in another human being during sex, is, ultimately, unattainable, and there is a sense of tragedy in the longing and the impossibility.

However, if the desire to reach that moment of deindividualisation actually stems from a state of human loneliness, then it is not, in fact, a sexual issue, but simply something which people may have unwisely chosen to resolve with sex. Therefore it would be remiss of us to not consider answers outside of sex.

As many of you may know, I am a huge fan of opera, and when I am at an opera house, sitting comfortably in my seat as the lights go down and the curtain rises, one of my favourite places to look is into the orchestra pit. There is something so magical, and so beautiful about seeing twenty, thirty, forty musicians all working together, with one goal; one task. Instruments call and answer one another, and ten bows move in perfect harmony. When an orchestra is working well, there is also a sense of sacrifice: by being part of it, these musicians have given up their individual fame in order to offer something to the greater purpose, to an opera or a ballet or a concerto, whatever it may be. It would certainly be rare, but it may be possible that these are the instances which offer human beings the chance to become one with others.

However, I do not wish to put this forward based on that ‘sense of sacrifice’. I do not mean to say that human beings can only be enlightened by giving to the greater good. The impossibility of losing oneself in another during sex does not exist because sex is sinful! And orchestras are not the perfect answer to human loneliness because they are grand, and beautiful, and a symbol of high art. No. There is something selfish about sex, and I don’t mean that in a bad way. When people don’t take some responsibility for their own pleasure, it often leads to very joyless sex lives. Therefore it could be argued that being conscious of personal pleasure – or, in fact, any personal sensation – is actually very wise, and I’m not sure how sex would work if at least one partner wasn’t interested in him- or herself. However, of course, focusing on the self stands as a barrier to losing the self. If a person is interested in his own pleasure, then he cannot forget his own individual experience and existence. But when a group of people are, together, creating something, the focus is not on the individual: it is on the creation. And that could easily be conducive to defeating that sense of individualism.

Of course, it’s just a theory – and a rather convoluted one at that – but I still think it’s something worth considering. And one thing seems certain, to me: with loneliness so rife, there must be, in some part of human existence, a desire to escape the individual.

The post Escaping the Individual appeared first on (It Girl. Rag Doll).

Chaucer’s take is a little different.

In Troilus and Criseyde Troilus is, in fact, rather passive in his actions. True, the drama of his feeling almost overwhelms the poetry of Book I, but he actually does very little. Meanwhile, Criseyde is continually resistant to any mention of his affection (and even when she gives into it, she is adamant that she wants to keep the independence she has as a widow).

But, of course, a passive hero and a resistant heroine are never going to come together of their own free will, and so Chaucer creates the character of Pandarus. Friend to Troilus, and uncle to Criseyde, Pandarus is a bizarre creature, who initially seems to genuinely care for both of the lovers, and even speaks some sensible words to Troilus. But as the narrative goes on, he becomes more and more manipulative, putting into action the things Troilus lacks the will to do.

By lying to her, Pandarus in fact takes over almost complete management of Criseyde’s physical being.

In Book III, for example, he uses lies to persuade Criseyde to come to his house, and then to stay the night, and then to take a room in a quieter, more intimate part of the house, and then to allow Troilus to visit her in her bedroom that night, and so on and so forth. Almost always, his final argument is that if she won’t do as he says, Troilus will surely die of heartache (and Pandarus will die from sorrow over the death of his friend).

Reading this, as the lies build and Pandarus becomes ever more manipulative, you can’t help but question Criseyde’s consent. At one point Pandarus practically strips Troilus and forces him into Criseyde’s bed. Criseyde often says no to things initially, but Pandarus always gets her consent in the end. However, the way he gets her consent is by lying to her, and whilst, to my mind, there is no question as to whether or not Criseyde is being coerced – she is! – this dynamic has brought to mind an entirely different question.

Can anyone give their consent if they are being lied to about their situation?

In the past I have been on all three sides of cheating; I have been cheated on, I have cheated on people, and I have slept with people who were cheating on their partners. I won’t ever deny this, and I still strive to withhold from judging those who do cheat – after all, every situation is unique – but I made a decision never to participate in cheating again. I wish I could say this was for moral reasons, but whilst I may have taken on some sense of morality, the main reasons I made this definitive decision were selfish: cheating made me feel bad, and I realised that I deserved more than half a partner.

Having given up the need to defend my own actions, I now have a different view of cheating, and, perhaps because I no longer have to deny it to myself, something about it really bothers me. Reading Troilus and Criseyde over the past five weeks, I have finally figured out what it is about cheating that makes me feel so uncomfortable, and it is this question of consent.

Let me give you an example:

John and Jane are married. Unbeknownst to Jane, John has been sleeping with somebody else. If Jane knew that he was cheating on her, she might withdraw her consent to sleep with John. But she doesn’t know, and so when they have sex, she is giving her consent based on the incorrect belief that John is being faithful.

Therefore, is there not a question as to the validity of Jane’s consent?

On the one hand, we as human beings have to take into account that at any given moment, we may be lied to. By being part of society, we accept that we may not always get the truth. Therefore, when anyone gives their consent to sleep with someone, they accept that there is a chance that the other person is lying to them, and that has to be taken into account as part of their decision.

But we all know how important trust is in relationships. There comes a point when consent may not be based on the individual’s own instinct, but on how much the individual trusts his/her partner. Therefore, if his/her partner is lying to the individual, the conditions of their consent may be undermined.

Really, what I wish to do here is to present uninformed consent as the grey area between informed consent, and non-consent.

There is no final answer to this problem: people cheat for a variety of reasons, and I have even come across cases – mostly where children are involved – in which cheating seemed to be the lesser of two evils. But still, this question of consent bothers me.

We can rarely be 100% sure that the conditions of our consent are being met, but there is most definitely a difference between the kind of knowledge we need in the early stages of dating, and the kind of trust we rely on in long term relationships in order to make an informed decision.

The only kind of conclusion I can come to is this: perhaps when we, as human beings, make the decision to sleep with someone, we ought to also take into account how that decision may affect the consent of the other people in our lives. Because in this world of sexual freedom, and BDSM, and polyamory, the importance of consent seems to be the one thing we all agree on. But are we really defining it honestly?

The post Pandarus: the gatekeeper of consent appeared first on (It Girl. Rag Doll).

Almost simultaneously with my decision to create a new OkCupid profile I went to stay with my artist grandmother and together we watched the first episode of In The Best Possible Taste, a program in which Grayson Perry explores the relationship between class and taste. The show was divided into three episodes – Working Class, Middle Class, Upper Class – and returning home I watched the other two and was reminded that although I might not be quite so cynical as some of the people in the program, I am most definitely middle class.

Whilst I would never purposefully exclude anyone from my life or veto someone as a potential romantic partner right off the bat just because of class, I have the wherewithal to recognise that there is definitely a correlation between class and who I am attracted to. When I mentioned to a few friends that I worried about class when online dating, I received some shock and a little outrage, the kind of which reminded of the backlash I have seen racism and sexism receive. Where I felt I was being honest about who I find attractive, they felt that I was being exclusive.

With the PC police ever biting at our heels it is becoming increasingly difficult to speak the truth. There are no hard and fast rules about attraction, but we should certainly be able to say “this does it for me; this doesn’t”. You cannot use sexual attraction as a measure of someone’s acceptance. I am not particularly attracted to girls; it doesn’t mean I think girls are less worthy or that I don’t get on with them in other dynamics, it just means the thought of sleeping with a girl doesn’t necessarily turn me on. There are exceptions to that rule, but it is a trend in my attraction none the less. Likewise, I am not particularly attracted to people of certain races. This is not a sign of racism; it is just a sign that I know myself.

When I started thinking about this, I realised that although we rarely talk about it, it is true that most people date within their own race and, back to my point, their own class. I doubt many people go out specifically looking for someone who is in the same social class as them, but from what I’ve observed, most end up with people similar to themselves. There is nothing wrong with that. So long as we aren’t persecuting people who do date outside of their apparent circles, then being honest about our own attraction is just that: honesty.

So, how does this apply to online dating? It can be hard to gauge someone’s social class via an online profile, and you might argue that it’s not important. And for many people it really isn’t important. But personally I have to be honest that the things I find attractive are predominantly middle class. I would never turn someone down because they weren’t middle class, but I would turn someone down if I didn’t like the sound of their voice, and the voices that I find most attractive tend to be middle class. This has nothing to do with me wanting to remain in my own social class, it is simply that for whatever culmination of reasons (probably my background and my education), something in me associates those middle class attributes with attractiveness. I’ll admit it is a tentative distinction, but it is not intended to be exclusive. I have no desire whatsoever to cut down the number of my potential romantic partners. But there you go.

I suppose, really, this somewhat aimless piece comes to two conclusions. One is slightly more superficial, so I’ll go with that first. If you are dating online and you find yourself a little too aware of your class and what you really are attracted to in that arena, make sure you talk to potential dates on the phone before you meet them. There is a huge amount you can learn about someone by hearing their voice. So many people adopt completely different tones when they are writing compared with when they are speaking.

But seriously, my real conclusion is this: being honest about what we are attracted to, be it race or age or class or body weight! – it is not shallow to say you won’t date someone who’s overweight if what you’re attracted to is really slim, slender bodies – is just good sense. The more truth we have in relationships and the world in general, the better. The more explicit we are about what we want and how our attraction works, the more likely we are to get it. And attraction is not something we manufacture for ourselves; it is something that becomes ingrained in us. Therefore no one should be penalised for being open about what does it for them, be it kinks or race or gender or class.

And perhaps most obviously, but also most importantly, we need to keep in mind that sexual attraction does not equate social acceptance.

The post Honest Dating: Class appeared first on (It Girl. Rag Doll).

For those of you who still think ‘rinsing’ is something you do after lathering up your hair – and a part of me wishes it still was just that, – I’ll explain: rinsing is an act wherein (young), sexually attractive girls get as much money out of rich (older) men without offering anything more than conversation and company in return. And in some cases, not even that.

The show centered around glamour model Danica Thrall, experienced rinser Jeanette Worthington, and erotic dancer Hollie Capper (pictured). At the beginning of the show all three girls (but Hollie in particular) argued their rinsing pursuits as a necessary and easy way to pay their bills at a time of national financial difficulty. With this thought in mind I watched openly, trying to consider rinsing as a kind of re-distribution of wealth; the 1% vs. the 99%. But as the show continued, it seemed to raise numerous moral and ethical issues.

One of the first things that came to mind was a question of feminism. Although these women do not have sex with their wealthy benefactors, they are selling themselves as an aesthetic product. Make-up, sex appeal and flirtation all seem to be important factors in this. Danica in particular makes the most of her image, posting photographs and setting up her own site of glamour shots. On the one hand they are selling a very particular and almost idealised, Barbie-like image of women, which could be viewed as anti-feminist; it could be argued that these girls are selling a fantasy, pandering to assumed male expectations of beauty, which might be considered counterproductive to feminism as a movement for gender equality. However, there is also a good argument to be made for the view that these women are strengthened in their gender by using their femininity as a power.

This also raises a question of exploitation. Are these women being exploited for their appearance, or are they in fact using their looks to exploit rich men? If the rules of these transactions are clearly laid on the table before any money or gifts change hands, then perhaps everyone is simply in charge of their own well-being. Perhaps exploitation doesn’t even factor into it. Personally I couldn’t help but feel that these girls are exploiting a baser part of the men willing to give them money; although I felt more strongly that these girls are exploiting themselves.

What really left a sour taste in my mouth was what the girls got in return for their beauty. Although at the beginning of the show there was talk of bill-paying and a simple need to survive in a difficult world, the vast majority of what the girls asked for and received were designer handbags, shoes and jewelry, which the girls showed no sign of exchanging for that apparently much needed cash. (Except for Hollie, who asked her mother to put gifts she didn’t particularly like and which weren’t worth much, on eBay.) What became increasingly clear as the show proceeded was that these girls are not in it because they have children to take care of, or because the mortgage needs paying, they are in it because they want men to buy them expensive gifts. When asked what the ultimate gift would be, Hollie – who initially talked about her bills a lot – answered “a lot of surgery”. I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions from that. Personally I have no problem with wealthy people buying beautiful things for those they deem worthy, particularly in cases where they want to give these gifts, but the pure amount of good these girls are being sent is a little sickening, and their attitude towards the men giving them gifts made me feel quite nauseous. Jeanette in particular seemed affronted when someone wouldn’t buy her something, as though it was her right to receive gifts from rich men simply because she was willing to spend time with them.

The other point to be made is that these girls are perpetuating not only a horrible and largely unrealistic ideal of beauty, but also an unhealthy consumer society. There is a huge difference between appreciating and purchasing beautiful things, allowing yourself some luxury, and being obsessed with the status certain labels and price tags apparently give. In a particularly disgusting moment Jeanette openly admitted that without these designer pieces she would feel “dead inside”.

In essence, rinsing is about making a commodity of conversation and company: both Hollie and Jeanette date men in order to receive the gifts and money they feel they are entitled to. Neither seems at all interested in the men she rinses. Danica deals with things a little differently. She never meets anyone, doing everything online. In the case of some of her benefactors she hasn’t even spoken to them, they simply shower her with gifts from her amazon wish-list. However, in the program there was a scene in which she used Skype to chat with someone who I assume was simply lonely and in need of some fun, flirtatious conversation to make him smile. Danica also has strict rules about never letting the conversation move into ‘adult content’. Unlike the other two girls, she was friendly, chatty and engaging with the other person. This seemed to me to be far more genuine. Although her approach is more businesslike, Danica actually seems to provide something worth paying for, whereas the other two were downright unappreciative of the benefits they received.

Despite my opening paragraph and my slight skepticism over the word “sex” in the title of the program, sex is something that must be discussed when it comes to this topic – despite the fact that the channel four show chose to ignore it, aside from mentioning the lack of sex numerous times. I was surprised to see the topic of financial domination come up on the show. As well as dating men who buy her gifts, Hollie is an online financial dominatrix. The concept of financial domination is one I was introduced to whilst listening to the Savage Lovecast; it is basically a kink wherein rich people (mostly men) get off on having people (mostly women) demand large sums of money from them. It links in with humiliation, where the person receiving the money will verbally degrade their benefactor by telling him/her how pathetic he/she is, having to pay someone for sex or for their company. Something about the fact that this is named and recognised as a kink or a fetish makes me feel better about it. Provided a person does not get into serious financial difficulty, this is a sexual act between two consenting adults who know the rules of the game. Everyone should be allowed the freedom to express their sexuality. And there is of course another side to that: I think we can say with almost complete certainty that there are men who find it sexually arousing to buy things for women. Whether it’s a status and power thing, or a matter of seeing girls wearing the beautiful things he has bought for her, it’s not hard to see why this would be appealing. And for this reason I’m finding it difficult to condemn rinsing.

The other sexual topic that simply has to be discussed is prostitution. Obviously, there is a difference between what these girls do and what prostitutes do, but I also think there is some line blurring. In the case of girls like Danica I think the line is very clear, because she doesn’t meet these people and because she says, outright, that sexual conversation is off the table. However, there is a place in between where girls will flirt and suggest sex in return for gifts, but then not deliver. This seems far more dishonest than either of the extremes. I suppose the main difference between rinsing and prostitution is the intention and the contract. When you hire a prostitute it is very clear what you want and price is something to be discussed as a business transaction. However, in places where prostitution is illegal, many people do not charge for sex but for the pleasure of their company, and sex is a fair assumption within that time. This is where the line blurs for me. This isn’t particularly a problem for me, as I am in favour of prostitution for many reasons, provided it is consensual, fair and safe – perhaps a topic for another article. But I do think these girls are kidding themselves if they believe they are above prostitutes simply because they do not have sex with their benefactors.

Overall what really bothered me about the program and about the act of ‘rinsing’ was the attitude of these girls towards the men, and the obsession with materialism. There have been times when I looked at my bank statement and my course reading list and wished against wish that someone would help me out financially or kindly offer to buy my books for me; or times when I considered publishing an amazon wish-list to people other than my friends and family, just on the off-chance that someone might want to indulge a part of me that is too poor to enjoy luxury; but I can’t imagine feeling okay accepting something from someone I have neither provided a service for nor someone I do not feel genuine affection for.

At the end of the day there are two different sides to the “art” of rinsing: on the one hand it is a business transaction, comparable with but dissimilar to prostitution, and for this reason I feel more comfortable with the way Danica conducts herself. On the other hand, and this is what really bothered me in the cases of Jeanette and Hollie, these girls are taking advantage of someone’s kindness. And with so little gratitude. In fact, they display an extremely distasteful sense of entitlement. And that is what really made me feel cold; the way ‘rinsing’ manipulates organic human interaction and distorts the idea of kindness.

The post Lather, Rinse, Repeat. appeared first on (It Girl. Rag Doll).

A couple of things in particular have occurred to me on this topic, things which I have not seen discussed in any great detail. When drop is written about it is mostly generically or personally, and predominantly by people who identify as kinky. Although I have my own personal experiences, the two things that have been on my mind are 1) that the severity of drop is relative to the type of person experiencing it, and 2) that people with no kinks to speak of also experience drop; in fact, it can be experienced in a non-sexual setting as well. The most severe drop I ever experience comes after I have been in a theatrical production; come rain or come shine everyone in the company can agree that the days after a final performance are hellish and leave us feeling utterly lost.

Speaking of the severity of drop in relation to the person experiencing it, what I mean is that a particularly emotionally strong person might not experience it with much severity, even if they have engaged in a very intense, (for lack of a better word) hardcore play, whereas someone of a sensitive disposition might experience drop in the wake of simply kissing someone and then being left bereft of their presence. In fact, I don’t think it would be much of a stretch to say that many people experience drop after experimenting as teenagers and/or loss of virginity, without identifying it. That cold, aloneness of the morning after is something I remember as very emotionally unsettling. Reading this piece by Jillian Boyd brought my thoughts to a head. In the piece she describes playing with someone in a way which may seem casual, but was very intense for her – and I believe would be very intense for many, – and having to stop due to an overwhelming sense of emotional disarray. This sparked another thought; it is possible to experience drop mid-play. The emotion involved in many focused exploits is enough to tip some of us over the edge.

Of course, I think experience plays a large part in the way we handle drop; as we grow more experienced and learn more about ourselves we also handle emotion better. I certainly don’t experience drop anywhere near as seriously as I did a couple of years ago.

Personally, I feel I have come across far too many people who engage in intense play and know almost nothing of drop. It is important to be able to identify it in order to ask that your needs be met. This was something I learnt long after I started experiencing drop; luckily, when I was finally able to name the feeling, I was simultaneously introduced to the concept of aftercare. Aftercare is the antidote; it is whatever we need in order to deal with the drop. For most it means comfort, care and cuddling. It is slightly different for everyone, but in general it seems most agree that a sense of being looked after is key. I believe it gets more complicated when both partners require aftercare, but I will leave that discussion for another time; I have personally never been with someone who needed aftercare, although I always make sure I check in with my partner to ensure they are doing okay.

However, with the advent of the internet, aftercare has become problematic. Now that we are able to connect with people who are not in our immediate vicinity, we are also able to play with them. But we are not able to get the physical aftercare we may require. Although there is a good case for the argument that you can’t build up the same intensity online as you can in person and therefore you don’t require the same level of aftercare, I believe there is still an imbalance. It would seem that online play can become more intense than online aftercare is equipped to deal with. Another problem – and I am loathe to bring this up because I have no desire to discuss the ethics of cheating on this blog post, but I think it’s important to add to the discussion – is that many people in relationships now have easier access to sex outside those relationships. What this means is that people may be able to go and play during the day, but more likely than not they will then have to go home to their partner afterwards, leaving the other person alone to deal with the drop.

I’m aware that there are people who would argue, then, that this is just another reason not to cheat, but I don’t like to pass judgement in such a general way; people cheat for all kinds of reasons and it is not my place to say they should not. Besides which, I have slept with married people; but that is my own business. The only part of that which I wish to discuss is this:

Harper Eliot’s Guide to Surviving Drop Alone. (Yes, the preceding 1000 words have all been leading up to this.) Since reading Jilly’s piece and generally contemplating how I take care of myself after playing with someone, I’ve been considering what tips I would give to someone experiencing drop on their own. And with all the pain and sadness I see on twitter every day, it seemed like something I should share. Of course, the following is very personal and can only be taken as advice and maybe a starting point; it is not law. It is also very simple; almost common sense really. The other thing which occurs to me when considering what follows is that if you’re female a lot of this may be very close to the kind of care you might require during menstruation. Whatever you do to take care of yourself at that time might be worth replicating during drop.

1. Communication with your partner. Even if he/she is not physically in the room, communication is important. Text, phonecalls, email, instant messaging, social networking… these are all tools you can use during drop. Talk. Demand the care you need. Conversely, if you don’t get it, you should not be playing with this person.

2. Communication with your friends. You don’t have to tell them what’s bothering you if you don’t want to, but speaking to a friendly voice is often very helpful.

3. Tears. You are allowed to cry. In fact, if you feel even the slightest need to, I openly encourage it. Crying can be an incredible release. It is therapeutic. It allows you to let out a huge amount of whatever negativity you are feeling. Make your pillow wet.

4. Cleanliness. Bathe, shower, BRUSH YOUR TEETH. Feeling the dirt of the day is just another burden to your body. You need to take care of yourself and feel comfortable and cosy in your skin. Not to mention the relaxing bliss that is a hot bath.

5. Clothes. Personally I feel a hoodie or a jumper can go a long way in helping you feel calm, relaxed and comforted. Keeping your body warm helps a lot. And the comfort of well-known everyday clothes helps as well. I would not, however, advise keeping items of clothing specifically for drop. The clothes need to aid you in coming back to everyday life so it is better if they are things you wear at other times too. Pajamas are good.

6. Food. Feel free to indulge in something not-so-healthy – like chocolate or chips – but don’t make this your entire diet. I cannot say enough good things about eating a substantial, healthy meal post-play. Not only does it help you recover, replenishing your body with what it needs, it also helps you psychologically if you know you are eating something that’s good for you.

7. Sleep. Make sure you get a good night’s sleep. Your body needs it. Your head needs it. You need it. You will feel better in the morning.

8. Busyness. Once you have a good night’s sleep under your belt I would advise that you get back to being busy with everyday life. Work is so good for this. As is housework, although try to get out of the house as well. Fresh air is your friend.

9. Music. Listen to something soothing, happy and warming. Something you love. Perhaps something that reminds you of good nights out with friends. (And if you’re kinky there are plenty of kinky podcasts to remind you that you’re not alone; although discussion is better than smut.)

10. Entertainment. Whether it be a book or television or magazines or the internet or an actual human being, find yourself something that truly makes you laugh. And laugh. As they say, it is the best medicine.

And there you have it. Ten steps to being a happy, healthy, (often kinky) person. You are entitled to your low feelings and you are owed your happiness.

Edit: there are lots of good comments and further advice below but I would particularly like to direct you to Abel’s comment; he talks about a side which I completely neglected.

The post Harper Eliot’s Guide to Surviving Drop Alone appeared first on (It Girl. Rag Doll).

All human beings are born free and equal (in dignity and rights).

This opening line is, of course, extremely important. The question of freedom is one that I have discussed here at great length, on several occasions, and it is something that many people devote many hours to in consideration, particularly as concerns situations where the expression of one person’s freedom impedes another’s. Which is why what follows this first line is so important:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

The latter sentence suggests to me a particular kind of responsibility, and to my mind, nowhere is this responsibility so apt as in freedom of speech. When I’m writing articles (rather than fiction) I spend a lot of time considering how best to express what I have to say in a way that is neutral and discussable rather than offensive and provocative. Of course, this is something I do out of choice; I have the freedom to choose how to write and how to express myself.

With that in mind, do we, in fact, have any right to censor or condemn those who choose to express themselves with less care?

Just before the weekend Discerning Dom wrote a piece called ‘No Limits‘ which earned him a barrage of comments from disgruntled and offended readers, myself included. Generally speaking I am an avid reader of his blog; it is regularly insightful, oftentimes exciting, and DD himself is an elusive man which lends a sense of mystery to his writing. But I, as a reader, a submissive, a masochist and a writer, have also come to rely on a certain amount of level-headed good sense in his articles.

As a writer I feel that DD is particularly good at blurring the lines between his fantasies, his memoirs and his thoughts on BDSM. For the most part this is done quite seamlessly and it simply makes the reading experience richer. However, with ‘No Limits’ I felt this line blurring became less elusive and more irresponsible.

In the first paragraph he writes:

And while she was suffering, whimpering and wriggling, we had a most interesting conversation about safe words. I haven’t got one, she said (‘Can I take the clamps off now? Please?’ ‘No.’)

From the moment I read this, I felt uneasy. Of course it is completely up to DD and his partner how they choose to play; if it’s consensual then, to my mind, it is their decision. However, the way that sentence is constructed – “And while she was suffering […] we had a […] conversation about safe words” – hit a nerve with me. It seems to suggest that the question of safe words had never come up before. Again, everyone has the right to play in whatever way they want to, but as the piece goes on and the pair discuss limits, DD begins to draw some pretty clear boundaries, and lay them down as though they are absolute truths:

Let me explain, I said, being a reasonable man. You are my submissive, right? Yes. That means you will always do what I say. You have agreed never to say no to me. OK, she said. Submission that draws a line and says no further isn’t really submission at all, I said.

At this point, as someone who engages in dominance and submission, I felt my freedom had been somewhat impinged upon. DD is clearly a seasoned dominant as well as a knowledgeable writer, and personally I feel that these two things give him a voice or, at the very least, a tone of authority; so when I read his ideas and his thoughts on D/s, I take notice because I feel fairly sure he knows what he’s talking about. I think for a blog that does very little self-promotion, he is very well read; his pieces get a fair few comments and he seems to have a group of ardent followers. This suggests to me that I am not the only one who trusts his words, nor the only one who promotes his blog. So you can imagine how these words, coming from someone whose authority I usually trust, felt like an attack on my freedom to submit in whatever way my partners and I choose. The closest simile I can get is this: imagine you fall in love and then you go and see your therapist and s/he tells you you’re not in love.

Furthermore, reading the above section I couldn’t help but feel worried; had I read it two years ago, maybe even a year ago, I would probably have been far less skeptical and perhaps even adopted his apparent devil-may-care attitude towards safe words. To me that is a frightening idea, particularly when followed by sentences like:

That’s what submission is all about. It’s about giving in, not about negotiating.

And:

A submissive who isn’t a little bit scared isn’t really a submissive at all.

I find his ‘this is the only way to do kink’ use of language deeply unsettling. Not only is it irresponsible in regards to his readers, but it is also disrespectful to dominants and submissives who choose to play or interact differently. If he had simply taken the time and forethought to premise these sentences with “the way I play” or “in my personal opinion” (for example) none of what he wrote would have offended me.

As I mentioned, I am not the only one who commented on DD’s piece negatively, and I have discussed it with others as well; different people had slightly different takes on it, and I’d urge you to go and read their comments as well. But I also think it is important that I direct you to DD’s rebuttal. Reaffirming his own sanity and level-headedness, DD wrote a second piece – in response to our comments – which did allay several of my own fears:

I think that if you read the blog as a whole it’s pretty clear I am not a psycho and that I don’t advocate abusing women, no matter how submissive.

This is true. I have read his blog for a long time and this is the first time I have ever felt uneasy about something he has written. He also mentioned that his partner was not in the room with him in the scene he describes in ‘No Limits’ which, I’ll agree, does make a difference; I have played a lot online but have never felt the need to use safe words in that setting due to the fact that there is only a limited amount of power you can give up over the internet. However I don’t think that was made explicitly clear in his original piece. He goes on to explain the level of trust he and his partner share:

And because she trusts me she is willing to dispense with various props like safe words.

Recently someone described consent to me as something that can evolve into trust; where you might first have a list of things you consent to, over time, as the relationship you share with the other person evolves, the list gives over to your trust that the other person won’t hurt you. Although it is perhaps worth mentioning that I still felt a little irritated by his careless use of the word “props” to describe safe words. I know for a fact that many people don’t consider safe words “props” so much as they do essential foundations. But again, that is really up to the discretion of whoever is playing.

In this second piece DD also defended himself on the basis that he does not, nor has he ever claimed to, write an instructional BDSM blog; in fact, his blog has the word “memoirs” in the title. Whilst that is unequivocally true, I think the following comment, posted on DD’s rebuttal, illustrates pretty well that his blurred non-fiction style does sometimes read like advice or guidance on BDSM:

I have just read you last posting and as a very new sub I agree with what you have said it is your views and anyone reading should either go away if they don’t like what they see and read or like me read and say thank you because reading your blog is what has helped me with what for me was a very difficult time and transition. so thank you for your help.

Personally I think this comment speaks for itself, so I’ll let it do just that.

But I have hugely digressed. Whilst DD’s piece does beg discussion, is for me only one example of what might be considered ‘careless’ writing, and when I come back to this point, I have real trouble justifying my complaints. After all, what I would like to champion overall is everyone’s freedom to make their own choices. What is most important to me is that DD – and all other writers for that matter – has the freedom to write his blog, be it fantasy, memoir, or advice, in whatever way he likes.

However, blogging and commenting are communal activities, so while he has the right to write what he chooses, if the comments are left open, we, the readers, have the right to comment as well, and I have said many times that, for me, discussion and debate are the most rewarding parts of blogging.

So perhaps it is just that; whilst each writer has the right to publish whatever s/he chooses, s/he also has a responsibility to do so consciously, and if the author chooses to waive that responsibility or genuinely doesn’t see what in their writing might be offensive, the responsibility then falls to us, the readers, to respond.

Which is exactly what I have done.

The post Safe Words and Responsible Authorship appeared first on (It Girl. Rag Doll).

This in and of itself is not something I see as a problem. Mostly it just seems to be the way we’re made.

But there is another saying, which seems to be far too true (for my comfort). Oscar Wilde said “All I wish to point out is that life imitates art far more than art imitates life.” And he was right. Our trends, our fashions, our lifestyles, our choices are often based on those we hear about, read about and see. And unfortunately, our view of women has become one of neurosis, clinginess and obsession.

I recently started watching Sex and the City again; I had forgotten just how much of that show is based around women worrying about, obsessing over and analysing their relationships with men. And that aspect of this show is not unique. It seems that a large number of TV shows/books/films aimed at women give a fair amount of their time to this kind of thing; Bridget Jones, Eat Pray Love, Sleepless in Seattle, even Austen, – not to mention the literature aimed at adolescent girls – all seem to be encouraging these obsessive tendencies. And if we are modeling our lives on those we read/see/hear, then I have to ask: isn’t our society encouraging bad behaviour?

Furthermore, all of the agonising those fictional women (and, by association, us real women) do, seems to be based on this constant struggle between how we believe men should act, and how they behave in reality. Which begs the question, who sat down and decided that if a man doesn’t call you for three days, if he wants to have his own life, if he flirts with someone else, he is, automatically, an asshole? And what – to me – seems particularly unfair about this state of affairs is that men are, for the most part, unaware of the rules that have been made for them because (shockingly) they don’t watch Sex and the City.

At this point – as I always seem to do, – I have to insert a few disclaimers: of course, for many women, this isn’t an issue. Many – if not most – of the ladies in the room seem to have made up their own minds about how they should be treated and how they should treat others, and so the whole question of “should” versus “does” is null and void. They’ve taken the view that men and women are just people and it’s up to us to decide what we’re looking for. On the other side of that, I’m sure there are things men do that are just as bizarre as this situation seems to me; but I’m a woman, and I’m commenting on this side. For now. And as for the fiction we are consuming? Well, there is evidence to show that people who read novels are better equipped to live in this World because they have more understanding of how other people experience life. We thrive on our own experiences, so consuming other people’s – whether they be real or not, and all good fiction has some truth in it, – is, most likely, going to enrich our experiences.

However, despite the collective intelligence of women, men and books, I have still come across enough hand-wringing girls to prompt me to write this article. Try as they might, it is evident, daily, that many women expect more from men than they are ever likely to get – and in some cases more than any man could give. And the prevalence of this “he hurt me, ergo he is an asshole” attitude is starting to grate. In fact, in some cases it has reached ridiculous heights; I saw a facebook status a few days ago reading “[insert male name here] just dumped [insert female name here]; what an asshole”. I decided to give this girl the benefit of the doubt, and assumed that he must have done something more than just break up with her to warrant the label “asshole”. But when I asked, it became clear to me that he hadn’t. He just dumped her because, presumably, it wasn’t working for him. Of course, she’s allowed to be angry, fair play; and then I read the collective hatred coming from her friends, who all agreed that he was/is an asshole. I know in this case it’s probably more a show of solidarity than genuine feeling, but – again – is this not just an undesirable trend that is going to lead to yet more bad behaviour?

If I had read more of the books that were aimed at me as a teenager – and I have done since – rather than being distracted by Hanif Kureishi, E. A. Poe and Ian McEwan, I’m almost certain I’d have wracked up a fair amount of presumptions about how guys were ‘supposed’ to treat me. It seems that at some (indefinable?) point in time, romance gave way to obsession. When did our heroines stop being swept off their feet and start analysing their relationships to death? I’m sure, at it’s core, it was a push for realism that led us to this point – because people are rarely swept off their feet in real life – but it’s gone beyond that.

This actually ties in very well with another belief I have been nurturing for a while now. It’s not original and I come across it quite often on other blogs – particularly those based around unconventional relationships – and it is the idea that we need more relationship models. Human beings seem to be programmed to compare and contrast – or educated to, since “compare and contrast” was the title of my most important piece of A-level coursework – and so we compare relationships. With disastrous effects! Comparing your situation to other people’s has always proved to be a bad idea. You’re either not having enough sex, or you’re not talking enough, or the age gap is too large, or – my favourite one – you both deserve better.

And worst of all? Comparing relationships ultimately becomes comparing men. But I’ve never met a woman who didn’t want to be appreciated for her uniqueness. So why can’t we do the same for men? I’m a firm believer in tough love, and have sent many crying girl friends off to read the brutal words of Greg Behrendt (author of He’s Just Not That Into You). However, sometimes people are just busy. Three days of silence from a high powered businessman is not a lot, and it’s certainly not cause for talk of assholery.

A good friend of mine spent the first six months of this year in Canada, where she met, dated and fell in love with an Earth-loving, soup-kitchen-volunteering, soft-hearted guy. Sure, he wasn’t perfect; he was scatty and difficult to get hold of, but for the most part, he tried to keep a balance between work and their relationship, and openly asked her to live at his house at the weekends. Being the age they are, money was an issue and he couldn’t afford broadband, and sometimes the phone got cut off, and she knew this well. Yet, every time she couldn’t get in touch with him – and we’re talking a matter of hours, not days – she would start questioning his motives, wondering if he really cared about her at all, and branding him an asshole for not making her his priority. I comforted her as much as I could until I decided I’d had enough.

This is not a unique example. I could give you a list of female friends who have given me almost identical complaints about their respective male counterparts. Likewise I could present each of these girls with a list of movie-moments where a woman is sitting beside her phone or bitching about the guy she eventually ends up with.

But back to those relationship models. I find it disappointing that in a World of polyamory, fuck buddies, long distance relationships, divorce, childless-by-choice marriages, kink, (I could go on), the majority still cleave to this one idea of how a relationship should look: daily contact, dates every three to four days, monogamy, sex (that is enjoyed modestly and not shouted about), trivial gifts (to, presumably, show feelings that we can’t trust without materialism), a carefully calculated schedule – date, have sex, meet each other’s parents, say “I love you”, move in together – etc. Why are we still measuring our pleasure by what’s expected of us, and not by what we find pleasurable? And these expectations are crushing! because suddenly, if something isn’t where it’s “supposed to be”, all those girls who were raised on chick flicks and modern romance fiction, think there’s something terribly wrong with their relationship.

But, of course, we’re not stupid. Pointing this out to my female friends has only ever elicited the answer “Yeah, I know.” And they do! They know this over-obsessing is unnecessary, and yet it continues – prompted, I am certain, by the examples that surround us – because… well, why? The only conclusion I can ever really draw is that far too many women want or are willing to put themselves in harm’s way. I call it ‘emotional masochism’. And I do not understand it.

I will do almost anything to avoid romantic, emotional pain (which is, admittedly, another problem for another article). I have rules for myself, to avoid exactly this kind of upset, so to me it is completely incomprehensible when women (and men actually) put themselves in situations where they are likely to get hurt. If you know you are an unfairly jealous person, why would you ask your partner if [insert the main antagonist of your jealousy here] had been at that party? If you know you need daily contact, why would you be in a long distance relationship? If you asked to just be friends, why would you get pissed off when he/she goes out with someone else? This kind of behaviour is something I truly cannot fathom.

At the end of the day, I really don’t have any of the answers, but I boil it down to one simple truth; if you are unhappy in your relationship more often than you are happy, then you probably shouldn’t be in that relationship. But, for fuck’s sake, give yourself a chance and don’t make yourself miserable. And can we please stop comparing relationships and just find the cut that fits us?

The post The (Female) Phenomenon of Emotional Masochism appeared first on (It Girl. Rag Doll).