So, this. From this.

The first link is to an article that’s subtitled, "A report from the chaotic postfeminist dating scene, where only the strong survive." Which should give you an idea of what it’s about. Now, perhaps it’s the jaded mien of a man nearing his dotage talking, but really, these kinds of essays are getting so bloody tedious, and the linkbait is losing its flavor. Still…

Jeff over at Alas, a Blog, and Megan at Jezebel have already responded far more adroitly than I ever could to the original article’s cavalcade of troglodytes, most of whom crept out of the woodwork in response to an earlier article’s assertion that many men are in a state of "prolonged adolescence", and that they are "child-men".

The fact that these guys so angry about their failures in dating is irritating. I don’t think "men" are baffled and bitter about all of this — I think that the specific men who got quoted as responding are, though. Thing is, their attitudes baffle me right back. They seem so invested in a mentality that’s so old fashioned, so outmoded, it’s like watching some guy arrive in modern-day Rome in a time-machine, and then get pissed off when nobody can tell him where the slave-market is.

I mean, I know they think that their railing against a "certain type" of woman, but in fact the source of their anger is their own expectations and bad judgement. Really, I suppose I can’t get too offended at the "child-man" piece because the guys she was describing were the same over-grown fratboys that I have never been close to. Tough break, fellas, but what do you expect? You can’t just slag off an entire gender, and then be lauded as rational, well-adjusted individuals, you know.

But that earlier article bothered me too, for different reasons than the jerks quoted in its sequel (hopefully). I suppose the real sticking point for me was this sentence: "For whatever reason, adolescence appears to be the young man’s default state, proving what anthropologists have discovered in cultures everywhere: it is marriage and children that turn boys into men."

If you’re going to make a blanket statement like that, then you’re actually making two rather broad judgements there; you’re also implying that it’s not a default state for women. Which is true — for some women. And, also false — for some women. The same might be said for men, but no, not in this article. Oh well.

But that "marriage and children turns boys into men" thing… that bothers me. (They used to say the same thing about war, too.) You can’t grow up if you don’t get married and have kids? You can’t be responsible and mature? Without a spouse and a brood, you can’t be taken seriously? I shouldn’t be surprise by this attitude, though: The idea that a person can be joyfully alone seems beyond imagining for some people.

In high school, guys without girlfriends are losers, and the stereotype of the sexless nerd sets in. Girls are pressured to have boyfriends, but not too many, and they should have sex with them except that absolutely not, no just go sit on that block of ice over there and eat your graham crackers. Unmarried women are treated as poor, unfortunate souls who must be just devastated that they haven’t gotten the ring, yet. Unmarried men are childish, commitment-phobes who refuse to grow up. And it just keeps going on like that, a kaleidoscope of inducements, peer-pressure, pejorative labels, the momentum of tradition, threats to one’s status — push, push, push.

This is what has always bothered me about relationships. It’s never just you and your partner who get into one: It’s always you, your partner, and society. And that’s not a three-way I’m comfortable with. For all the progress that we pat ourselves on the back for, the idea of a life without romantic relationships is still punished with the implication that the uncommitted will not be allowed to grow up.

And if so many people see marriage and parenthood as the trophies of adulthood — and if that adulthood is treated as the most exalted, elite level of human development, or the ultimate prize that one receives for following all of the rules — then one can’t help but wonder if those attitudes are a core influence behind the burning desire to deny gay people the right to possess those symbols. (Aside from religious zeal and childish body-horror.) Because, of course, it is useful to infantilize people you don’t like. Because you’re the adult here, and you’re the one who knows what’s best. And you can just dismiss ‘em, dumb kids. They don’t live in the grown-up real world, like you do.

But, if it all seems confusing and frustrating, cheer up. We’ve got a little bit more leeway in deciding for ourselves what being an adult is, and what are lives are for. Yes, it’s scary, and yes, there’s still a lot of pressure being put on us to stick to the script — but future generations will sort it all out, someday. I mean, by the time the world has to figure out whether or not Robosexuals should be allowed to get married, human-on-human relationships should be a snap.