Mr. Right vs. Mr. Right Now

Good day to all of my fellow aliens, I hope everyone is diligently preparing for summer festivities.  I’m here sitting in my spaceship, and I just thought of an interesting question to ask Pistolera and the rest of our faithful readers.  What is the process in which women categorize the men in their lives?  I believe the popular phrase is Mr. Right vs. Mr. Right Now.

In my sophomoric imagination, I would think there would be a long questionnaire that a man would have to fill out.  Based on that questionnaire, coupled with a few dates and maybe a few “test drives,” the woman could properly categorize that man and their future interactions.

What are the prerequisites? Are there advantages of being in one group versus the other? Can a man switch from one group to other over the course of the woman knowing him?

In my opinion, I would like to create a third category, Mr. Hugh Hefner.  Now Mr. Hugh Hefner would be that guy that you know who lives in a mansion with beautiful aliens and has delightful parties all while managing a multi-million dollar company.  You know, he doesn’t care how he’s categorized; he’s comfortable living as he is -- his own man.

Lightsabers up!

Darth Vader Jr.

Here's a question for you in return: have you ever looked at a couple and said, who would ever date/marry/touch that person?  Well, I have - and you're lying if you say you haven't.  The conclusion I've come to is that there is a Mr./Ms. Right for everyone.  So, if we assume there is only one for us (this is a highly debatable point, I know), by definition everyone who comes before is only Mr. Right Now. 

Women do categorize, and the advantages of being in one category versus another depends on the man's purposes.  If he wants to hit-it-and-quit-it, he probably doesn't care -- he's going to leave anyway.  If he wants to be in a relationship with the woman, he can still do that in either case, but she'll be a bit more settled (and content) in the relationship if she thinks he's Mr. Right from the start.  If she thinks you are Mr. Right Now, she is still looking for Mr. Right, so she's not focused on you and seeing your full potential.  There are also dangers to one side thinking the other is the Right one: when both sides are not on the same page, it inevitably leads to hurt feelings and broken hearts.

Most men don't care how they're classified, in my experience.  Their romantic notions are a lot different than women's, and they probably believe that when they find Ms. Right, she will think they are Mr. Right.  They may not be wrong: most women are happy to be in a relationship (something I have issues with) and don't leave for the (many) reasons I would, ie. I've outgrown him, am bored of him, or know I can do better.

Your question assumes every woman is looking for that one Mr. Right and will go through plenty of Mr. Right Nows, tossing them aside, until she finds the Right one.  I don't agree with this approach.  I value the time spent with a person whether or not I intend to pursue a long-term relationship; that is how you find out about a person and whether or not you can endure them for the long term.  Snap judgments don't benefit anyone in dating; they will always lead to disappointment with your writing someone off too soon or building them up so that there is no way the reality can measure up.

 But, both men and women should not "settle" just because someone checks the boxes either.  I can't tell you how many dull conversations I've had to endure with guys who check all the boxes, making me long for a high school dropout with a love of life and great conversational skills.

So, I say: get out there, find interesting people, and enjoy life.  The only way to find Mr. Right (whether or not he starts off as Mr. Right Now) is to truly get to know the person without jumping lightyears ahead into marriage, kids, and a lifetime together.  Mr. Right Now could turn into Mr. Right with some training, and the one you initially thought was Mr. Right could disappoint you.  That's the funny thing about dating -- you never know where it will take you.

-- Deuces, Pistolera

New World, Old Rules

I know this is one that confuses you men: women now earn as much (if not more than you), are more educated, and can do pretty much anything on their own, yet we still expect you to ask us out, pay for dates, and generally pursue us.  Why do the old rules still apply?

There are a number of reasons.  The first is that women still like to be treated like they matter.  If the man is not acting as if he is courting her, she may as well be hanging out with her friends -- male or female.  The second is related to the first: there has to be some way to distinguish a date from casual social interaction in a world in which women and men can, in fact, be platonic friends (we can save that discussion for a future post by Darth because I know he has a lot to say about this).  The third is that women still value chivalry, in the same way we value education, ambition, a sense of humor, etc -- as essential to being a man.  Furthermore, in a mannerless world, men who have gentlemanly manners stick out.  And men, you want to be memorable!

Now, does following these old rules have implications for other parts of women's lives?  Women Don't Ask addresses the societal and cultural forces that make women less willing to negotiate in both personal and professional contexts.  The author states that women are conditioned not to ask for what they want but rather to expect that they will receive it.  At work, women expect they will be promoted and rewarded simply because they work hard -- while men who ask for the promotion or raise get it first.

In the dating context, we would expect that waiting for men to ask us out would put some of us at a disadvantage, with the women who ask getting the men first.  I don't think that's true, only because there are things that women can do to ensure they get the man they want, and he asks them out: show some interest and flirt a little but don't seem desperate.  In addition, men are often put off by a woman who pursues them: they want what they can't have and that is an illusive woman with many other options who is "choosing" them (whether or not it's an actual choice).

Hence, the same roles present a dilemma in the New World: men want to chase, and women want to be pursued.  Being a gentleman is a tough job, but someone's got to do it.  Men, ask a woman out and plan a real date!  Don't just expect to "hang out" and definitely don't expect the woman to do the work.

Darth, what do you think about the traditional dating roles?  Are changing roles scary or welcome?

-- XOXO Pistolera

My dear Pistolera, aren't you late for your daily appointment to tempt men's souls to the point of insanity? I ask because I think you'll have a better time doing that than listening to my reply!

If this were my post, I would probably have named it "New World. Same Dudes."  Don't get me wrong; I get the argument and probably agree with most of it.  However, I think the main point is this: women will be pursued by men who want to pursue them (and interlude in the nude - thanks Lil Cease).  As I have mentioned previously, men often change their minds and their tactics constantly.  Let's break down the discussion into three types of men.

The first type of guy is the maverick: they don't have a gentlemen spirit in their body.  They don't need to have one because women fall at their every whim.  If you had ultimate power in the art of seducing bunda without lifting a finger, would you change your tactics?  Probably not.  I think their view of life is independent of the woman's success. New World - Same dude.

The second type of guy is the proverbial nice guy: let's call him the "over-gentleman."  He will always "do the right thing" in terms of how he treats a lady, usually to his disadvantage.  Maybe it is a combination of how he was raised coupled with his love of women but again, I don't think he is affected by a woman being more successful. New World - Same dude.

The third type of guy is the wild card: he's not a true gentleman but isn't necessarily opposed to acting like one as long as the woman deserves it.  These are the guys you need to be direct with to maximize your dating utility regardless of your position in life. Smart but oblivious.  New World - Same dude.

And by the way, since we are dealing with a new world where I am part of a species that is dumb and poor, I'm starting an "Adopt-a-Dude" campaign with the tagline "Clothe a dude; feed a dude."  Come on ladies, it's a New World out there -- educate us helpless aliens!

Ninja smoke, and I'm out....

Darth Vader Jr.

Gone in 60 seconds?

Greetings Earth Women,

Can a woman figure out all they need to know about a man just by looking at him during that first sixty seconds of initial contact? Or said bluntly, do woman decide whether they'll "superman that gentleman" immediately after meeting him? I think there are too many mixed messages out there.  On one hand, the great television tells me women decide whether they want to sleep with guys almost immediately.  Once she decides, she lures the guy back to her house where she breaks out the bud light and her twin sister. Oh wait, I'm sorry that was last night's beer commercial (those guys are geniuses).   On the other hand, real life shows instances of dudes wearing down women all the time by being persistent.  If I had a dollar for every time I heard a woman say, "I'll never do anything with that dude in a million years" and then subsequently hear them talk about their night of passion because he just keep pursuing me for months, well, let's just say I'd be in Vegas right now.


So Pistolera, keep it real with a dark Sith lord.  Do ladies really know if they'll sleep with a dude the moment they look at him?  And for our little underage viewers, replace "sleep with" with ice cream socials (I mean it!): no one is too young for a Jedi death grip.

-- Darth Vader Jr.

Well, Darth, that's a great question.  A woman, like any human being, makes a decision in the first 60 seconds (well, it may take longer depending on the situation, but let's just go with your timeline).   That decision, however, can change in a much shorter period of time -- making a man more or less attractive. A man can never go from 0 to 60: I will never engage with a man who I was initially repulsed by.  A man, however, can go from 30 to 60 and back: if I'm lukewarm on a man or don't want to commit too strongly to a situation before feeling it out, I will sit back and observe and let him prove himself.

In much simpler terms, there has never been a situation in which I was so smitten that I decided I wanted to be with a man no matter how he acted.  Charm, charisma, and effort go a long way in getting a man whatever he wants in the same way that not giving a woman attention, being a cheapskate, not being interesting, or generally acting like he doesn't want to be there -- I don't chase men -- will immediately turn a woman off.

I, for one, like to make informed decisions.  I keep a tight circle around me and only let in those who are worthy of it (of course, there are always exceptions to the rule, ie I may be bored at that particular time and allow a man to entertain me temporarily).  So, initial attraction can quickly turn to repulsion -- or even greater attraction.  And, effort can get a guy -- attractive or not -- very far in his dating life.  Show you want to be there, and she'll keep you around: there's no need for any woman to waste her time on a man who shows no interest in being there (see the last post).

Generally, the decision made is do I want to find out more about you after the first 60 seconds?  If there's even an inkling of a "yes" in response to that question, I'll see you again.  If I'm not intrigued, I may see you, but chances are there will be no ice cream socials (or they will be short-lived).

-- With love, Pistolera

He's Just Not That Into You...or Is He?

So how do you know when a man is into you?  I've always operated under the assumption that a man is "just not that into" me until he shows -- with extensive effort -- that he is.  (And even before He's Just Not That Into You became a widely used statement, I operated under these assumptions.) Most women start from the other side of the spectrum, assuming any man that meets her will automatically realize he can't live without her -- well, they're hoping at least.  I'm not nearly that delusional.  Not to say that I'm not a great catch.  I have been fortunate in my dating life and have plenty of experiences that say that I am.  Nonetheless, I'm not under the impression that I will satisfy the whims of every man.  There are a lot of factors at play there.

So, all that being said, are there certain things a man will do that let you know that he's definitely interested?  I've always thought there were specific signs that would show you were getting there, if not there already -- he calls you (because we know men, like me, never pick up the phone), often just because; he readily makes plans, not weeks into the future, but as soon as possible; and he takes into consideration the things you've told him you like or have been wanting to do.  If a man doesn't do these basic yet explicit things, he's either emotionally unavailable or just not that into me.  For a man who is interested, the things that may otherwise constitute "effort" become effortless.

But, what does it mean when the signs aren't so clear?  Does that man just want to keep you on hold, ie he's emotionally unavailable, or is he not into you? (These may be the same, by the way.)

I am not that concerned because my natural assumption is that he's not interested; I am notoriously oblivious to a man's interest.  I don't have time to be bothered by the whims of the male species, but once in a while, we all wonder, what are they thinking?  Darth, all yours.

-- an overthinking Pistolera

First off, please address me as Mr. Vader or your royal Evilship, whichever works best for you.

So I tried to put a lot of thought into this reply.  I was coming up with different theories, strategies, explanations, all bent on exploring the thought process of men.  Then it hit me: it's really not that complicated. I mean, we are talking about men here. The key to our happiness is simple. I think a comedian put it best one time: fix me a sandwich, look sexy, and don't talk too much. Ha.

Pistolera, my dear evil agent, the answer to your question is simple.  If you have to ask that question, then the answer is usually no.  People's intuition on this subject is usually spot on.  But I'll let you in on a little secret: by definition, men are option traders at heart.  We are never going to let a free call option slip through our fingertips. Think of it this way ladies: when that guy does change his mind you can relate to the great southern poet know as Mike Jones...

Back then girls didn't want me / now I'm hot / girls all on me
Back then girls didn't want me / now I'm hot / girls all on me / I SAID
Back then girls didn't want me / now I'm hot / girls all on me
Back then girls didn't want me / now I'm hot / girls all on me / I SAID


But this simple fact about men brings up an important question.  Ladies, when we do start showing you that attention, will you reciprocate? I hate to admit it, but I kind of agree with pistolera's strategy (somewhere a baby unicorn just died; I have just sided with pure evil).  Unless a guy is clear with his intentions, don't even worry your pretty little bunda over him.  Trust me, when he's really into you, you will know.  And if not, by definition, another dude is just around the corner!

-Darth Vader Jr.

Understanding the Human Female

The ranting of an alien life form obsessed with the drug known as the human female...

This is my first lead post, so I want to ask some questions I’ve always had regarding the ladies.  Let me know your thoughts.  I’m sure Pistolera will let me know hers.

1. What’s up with the obsession with shoes?  I mean I get they might look nice, but other than that it’s nothing more than a comfort thing.  I’ve seen many ladies falling over trying to wear those 12 inch heels (maybe they’re 12, maybe less, I can’t tell…)
2. Why is it customary for guys to pay for first dates?  I thought this was the century of the woman? A guy should be able to go on date with a beautiful woman and have her pay for a nice steak. I mean, we know what that means after the date and we’re happy to oblige (unless of course any sporting event is on)!
3. I know I’ll get in trouble for this question but I’ll ask it anyway, what is the female equivalent for the television event known as the Superbowl?   I know there are some ladies who love football but a meaningful percentage do not.
4. So I get that ladies don’t like men who think they own them if they buy them a drink at the club. What if this person buys you a bottle and it is not your birthday.  I think for a bottle they deserve at least one slow song, preferably by R. Kelly or R. Kelly Jr. aka Trey Songz.
5. Last but not least, I think we all know the human female is a complicated animal, what is the key to keeping her happy?

Live long and prosper. Ninja smoke, I’m gone…

-          Darth Vader Jr.

This is why men should never be allowed to lead anything, but here we go:

1.  Shoes make any outfit look good. It should come as no surprise that women often have self-esteem issues (that is, women other than yours truly), and with shoes, women don't have to worry about fit or looking fat or the right color for their skin tone.  Shoes are easy, and they can make even the most boring outfit interesting (we know you all like the sexy secretary look, men, so I know you understand me!)  Plus, I don't wear shoes that aren't comfortable.  I need to be able to walk in my heels, maybe even run.  Now, I understand my pain tolerance may be higher than most's, but still.  And, women are not just obsessed with heels, dear Darth.  See: Uggs, ie a fashion obsession for no reason (I just threw up thinking about them, but you know girls who can't live without them and got all excited when the Jimmy Choo ones came out -- not even Tamara Mellon could save those dreadful foot mittens.)
2. A man is supposed to be able to provide for a woman (regardless of what century it is).  It's not only customary for the man to pay for the first date, but I'd say he should pay for most of them.  And it does not mean anything more than you are having dinner, and it is a date -- unless you're dating a cave man.   It doesn't mean the woman wants your money (hey, she may even make more than you, which is also becoming the usual these days), but it does show you want to be there.  And every woman wants to know you're interested -- and no, your being there is not enough to show that.  If I pay, it's not a date, plain and simple.  In fact, once I start paying, I'm not "dating" you anymore; we're hanging out.  And boys, you do not want to be "hanging out" with a woman you're interested in.  Be a gentleman and pay, or stay home -- alone.
3. Women don't have just one event, so this is a tough one.  And I'm not your typical female, so it's tough for me too.  Maybe the Victoria's Secret fashion show?  But hey, I don't see any guy saying no to watching that!  But really, TV is a man thing.  I don't base my life around TV programming -- B-O-R-I-N-G!
4.  If they want to buy a bottle, that's their prerogative.  They'll still get R. Kelly, aka Coke and a smile...ok maybe not Coke.  But this brings me to another point, which is that men have it all wrong.  Say something to a woman; be interesting.  A man who can carry a conversation will have to buy a lot less than a dull man (unfortunately, even the dullest man thinks he's interesting and some desperate female has probably reinforced that delusion, so this is an uphill battle, I know).
5.  Just like a man to want one magic key.  There is no trick.  Listen, pay attention, and act like she is the only woman in the world (hey, a lot of womanizers are able to do this -- that's how they get so many women and are able to keep them interested even though they may be sleazebags!).  Don't be a jerk; don't be cheap; and keep it interesting.  We're not asking for much!

--Love always,  Pistolera

"Why would you date someone you didn't want to marry?"

My sister asked me what the point of dating someone was if I wasn't thinking I could marry them earlier today.  Well, lil sis, the problem is that if I only dated people I'd actually want to marry, I'd never go on a date. 

Now, since you don't know me, this is partly a function of the quality of men (and trust me, I don't go below the upper echelon) and partly a function of my standards (although I will lower them somewhat if I'm bored, although that usually just leaves me bored. hmmm...a discussion for another time).

So, what is the problem you ask?  Am I dating ogres?  Do they at least meet some of my criteria? No and yes, but I admit I have a long list.  However, it's not comprised of silly things like hair color and job but rather of the mere basics -- um, how about a sense of humor or the ability to have a conversation or just to spell words correctly or at least punctuate sentences properly?  In my opinion, most women settle too easily...maybe because of attraction (which, for me, is not purely physical and can dissipate instantaneously if a man does "ugly things") or a checklist based on things that have nothing to do with character or joie de vivre (a certain kind of job, a specific ethnicity or religion, or even mere proximity).

The problem with my list -- or any list, ladies -- is that men naturally think they meet every characteristic on your list, no matter how long.  And trust me, guys, you DO NOT.  Men like to play this game on a date: "So what do you look for in a guy/what's your type/etc?" and I'll start.  Then they'll smile, and I can hear it coming before they even utter the words: "I'm all of those things/that's me/etc."  Now, sometimes, I do have to be nice and drop some of the things from the list depending on who I'm with.  You never want to tell a man who's bald that you love a full head of hair or a short one that you have a height minimum, for example.  So, don't ever share the list.  It's always a lose-lose.

Now, as for why I would date someone I don't want to marry: why not? Too many women think they "could" marry almost every man they meet.  I expect to only want to marry one person, and I haven't met him yet.  When I do, I'll be dating someone I want to marry.  Til then, I'm enjoying life!

--Pistolera


Ladies and Gentlemen, salutations and bunda sempre

Let's begin with a favorite quote of mine...


"Baby, I was born with certain things: Two hands to hold. Two legs to walk. Two eyes to see. Two ears to listen. But why only one heart? Because the other was given to you. For me to find. You make me so happy"

That was beautiful wasn't it? A work of art, a modern day Mona Lisa with bamboo earrings.  I mean that line has probably saved more games than Mariano Rivera. It has melted more woman's hearts than Nelly's video "Tip Drill". I'm sorry, that actually melted my heart, but I digress.

Pistolera went on and on about why she is smarter than most women, like her little sister Anjinho ("little angel").  She lives life to have fun until she meets that special someone for everlasting "smoosh smoosh". Until then she goes on all of these dates and listen to men spend hours pleading their case on why they are the men who can fulfill all of her needs. "Well you know baby, I'm a secret agent who works out 10 hours a day, but I still have time to rescue kittens out of the tree and write poetry in between rap battles."

She seems so content doesn't she? I can see her on these dates thinking in her head.... haha this is me Queen Bee, having the time of my life dating these dudes and letting them down easy cause "I'm ballin." False, aka the opposite of the truth.  In reality, there's no set way to live your life.  Anjinho is just as likely to be happy  living her life on her terms as she would be living life like her big sister. As long as you're confident and don't put up with any garbage, ladies you'll be fine.  Don't be fooled by any alien with long lists who thinks they know it all.

Oh and about my favorite quote from above? It's from a world renowned womanizer who has admitted to fathering over two hundred children across the globe over three years.  That wasn't a typo, that's two hundred kids over three years, what did you do today lazy?  My point for including it? I'm sure pistolera has fallen for slick talking men just like him more than once.  But it's cool to get your own blog and deny, deny, deny.  Ninja smoke, I'm out of here.

- Darth Vader Jr.