Listen. So after last week’s post wherein I slyly revealed that I’m seeing someone (remember, Jim and Pam), I had a discussion with this young man with whom I am frequenting local food establishments and movie theaters (we also have dates at the mall…it’s like, so 9th grade). Apparently my definition of “single” and his definition of “single” are not really the same. So we had a chit chat about it, and I shockingly had to re-think if I was right about this one or not. That is not sarcasm. I am right about everything with very few people, one being this young man (eventually I’ll think of a cute nickname for him), so when hearing his point of view and listening to myself explain my own side, I realized, I might agree with him more than I agree with me. In other words, he might be right. Gasp! So here we are to evaluate. Feel free to commentate in the comments.
I must admit that it is a little weird being attached to someone specific after a significant period of time being without a “special” man in my life. When I moved back to Raleigh I was excited for this chapter. It would be filled with a job I liked, a wonderful roommate, and plenty of single young country boys. I’d never have admitted this, but I was thinking I’d find a special man within a year of moving here. We’d meet at a bar, or volunteering, or maybe at a young professionals meet-up, or if my mother had her way, at church (thereby checking off her single most important requirement that he be Catholic). He’d be super cute obviously, tall perhaps, of the dark and handsome variety since this seems to be the visual I gravitate towards. We’d go on some nice dates and eventually fall in love, and perhaps a year or less later we’d break up. Or maybe a couple / few years / however many years would go by and we’d become engaged and I’d plan a fantabulous wedding, and then we’d have some babies like good Catholics do and live happily ever after until we both die together like in The Notebook. Duh.
This little story has obviously not come to pass. After all, this is real life and I don’t live in a Rom-Com. Instead I found a cute boy/man at my office (and in my department no less…I mean). Pluses: he is a country boy, he is tall, he is cute (obviously…see numerous past entries about dating ugly men), and he has left tulips on my front porch. Hello, major points. Anyhoo. I don’t want to get into the gory details because they are too gory even for me and I live them. Suffice it to say, he’s great. Awesome. High five to me and to him for being great. But.
Here is where we originally disagreed. In my last post, I grouped myself with the “single girls” because I am not married or soon-to-be-married. I like him, but you guys, where’s the fire, right? And of course when comparing myself with two groups of gals, one group being engaged/married, and one group being single / casually dating / courting / whatever you want to call it, I would obviously fall into the second category. Which, for convenience and word-count sake I dubbed “being single.” Whatever. So then we went through this engineering type exercise and used nerd words like “boolean.” We both work in IT so some of our conversations are embarrassingly nerdy. I like it and then I roll my eyes and vom. Anyway. It went like this: married = not single, so therefore not single = married. This is obviously false. We are not married. We are not engaged. We are not even talking about marriage except in abstract terms (you know, comments like “If we get married I will not clean up after you” or the like). But we are/I am not single either. I don’t go out without him and troll for dudes. He doesn’t go out with his boys and pick up chicks (ahem, he better not, trust). Yes we both go out and sometimes even without each other (gasp, we are individuals!) but not trying to find Mr. or Mrs. Right. But we’re not committed to each other for the rest of our lives (yet? yikes). This doesn’t really make us available, but we’re not married. So we’re single? Eh, not really. But yeah, we are.
Um, ok. That’s kind of how the conversation went. I kept saying, “but we’re not married!” And he’d calmly and logically (ugh, logic) reply, “but you’re not trying to get with other guys, right?” To which I obviously reply, “um yeah, sorry to break it to you.” JK ya’ll. Of course I said no. I ain’t no cheater. But we were both honest at the end of the conversation and agreed, we’re not committed for life and therefore nothing is final. He may think I am the sweetest thing since French Toast, and I may be charmed by his country-boy accent and adorable dimple (ugh I am grossing myself out), but if one or both of us encounters someone else or discovers we’re just not that into each other, it will not take one year plus attorney fees to make that happen.
So in conclusion. I’m not single and neither is he. But I simply don’t think that being in a relationship or dating someone specific means you are completely and 100% taken forever. Yes, we will be exclusively “together” until such time as we aren’t. Or until we get married, at which point we will be exclusively together forever (optimism alert!). So maybe there should be three categories instead of just two: married/engaged, dating, single. That’s fair.
It is so hard for me to say I’m wrong, so I’m not going to say it. It was simply a terminology disagreement and neither of us were right or wrong. But no, I’m not single. Fine.