Are you asking literally or just figuratively? Because I had a love interest that broke up with me by running me over with her car. Given the circumstances, I was easily 'over' her relatively quick. But I didn't heal from it for about 6 months because I was in traction most of that time.
Oh man, I've listened to The Smiths. (They're probably a little bit before the time of the true 'twentysomethings' in this subforum.) Their song "There Is A Light That Never Goes Out" pretty much sums it up for me.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't get all the excitement over these pictures of Pluto that the New Horizon's spacecraft has transmitted back. Wasn't it recently that Pluto was demoted as a planet? So why all the fuss? I had this coworker in the break room totally raving about the pictures she saw of Pluto and I found her excitement pretty annoying. Just for argument's sake, I told her that Pluto was nothing and said that if there's anything that I'd want to see it was "pictures of Uranus because it's way bigger and more interesting. A total closeup of Uranus would bring a ton more excitement around here."
The next thing I know I find myself sent up to Human Resources having to watch a series of sexual harassment prevention videos. WTF.
Whoa, so you're basically suggesting that Jared is graduating from 6" subs to tossed salads? If he ends up losing even more weight in this manner, then maybe there's still a marketing opportunity for Subway to exploit yet, LOL.
So go ahead and do it. At the risk of sounding facetious, become a figurative "hermit" like me. But I am being serious. What struck me is the fact that you said that you don't want children and you don't seem absolutely sold on the notion of marriage to begin with. If that's the case, then why bother in the pursuit of trying to find "the one"? Because once you might have found one for yourself, it would more likely come to pass that for her, her end game (children, marriage) will be in diametrical opposition to yours. And ultimately, the whole hooking up was all for naught anyway. I don't know, this may be just a wild stab in the dark so don't mind me, but I'm thinking that your fear of being alone is being equated to that of being an "outcast" and the notion that you aren't finding happiness the same way everyone else seems to be doing it. Rather than banging your head against the wall and frustrating yourself with that ever-elusive mindset, why not reverse the way of thinking and try that "other way of life"? I you yourself are finding it to be a "chore" to be with someone, would it not perhaps be more liberating to relinquish yourself of that chore and just live your life doing the things you enjoy on your own? Give yourself a year to just test the waters of 'hermitdom' so to speak and see what it's like. And by that, I'm not literally saying to hole yourself up at home and just play video games all day. Rather, all I'm suggesting is that you go about your life without the self-inflicted (or society-inflicted) pressures of inherently feeling that every social encounter or event needs to have this sort of "hooking up" outcome. Just basically go out and treat yourself, do the things you like to do, and learn to just make yourself happy. ( Go to a sports bar and watch basketball games. Commiserate with fellow sports fans and make acquaintances.). Eat out at nice places wherever you like. Go watch a movie whenever you like. Take drives to places you hardly go to, explore, and try out restaurants or experience attractions you've never tried before. But do these on your own an truly challenge yourself to see if you really dislike it.
I guess this is much like what ayahuasca is suggesting, but with a further suggestion as to what you might consider doing during your hiatus. At least by the end of it, if you truly find that you are still unsatisfied with life even doing and enjoying things on your own, then maybe it will not only answer questions about yourself, but give your more clarity on what you really want out of life.
Working for a local government entity, our salary increase system is pretty much straightforward: each job classification has its own salary scale with a description of 5 salary step increases. You start the job at step 1 - and in steps 2 through 4 you can earn a yearly salary increase of 5% in the next step, provided that you rate a Satisfactory or above on your annual performance evaluation. The last step (5) is one final bump in salary of 6% and you remain locked in at that salary for as long as you choose to stay in that job classification. It should be noted that regardless of how great your performance eval was (ie Above Standard, Outstanding), the step increase is always the same 5%. I suppose you could probably petition to "skip" a step increase to a higher one - but I think it's rare that one goes that route. Anyways, from there one can always freely choose to promote up to the next job classification series that is higher in pay - and therefore also subject to its own set salary scale of 5 step increases. (For example, you could have started out fresh from college as a Staff Accountant. Work that 4 years (moving up within its salary scale) - whereupon you can continue working at the topped-out step 5 pay grade for the next 2-3 years until you hear about a job vacancy at the Associate Accountant level. You can then apply/interview/promote up within the system and you are again presented with a new set of salary steps in which you can earn further salary increases. After that you can move on to Senior Accountant, Principal Accountant, and so forth).
However, outside of the salary step increases, the various unions that may represent your particular group of job classification/bargaining unit (ie. clerical, middle management, etc) can independently negotiate for annual increases to the overall salary scales of all jobs to account for cost of living. When agreed upon, I think it's a typically 5 year contract to which the government entity has to adhere in basically changing (increasing) the respective job salary scales across the board by a certain percentage (for example, an additional 2.5% each year of the contract). After which, the union usually goes back to the negotiating table to hammer out another contract with revised wage increase demands based on COLA expectations in the next 5 or so years. So, for example, you could be working as a Staff Accountant and earn a step increase raise of 5% at your next performance evaluation in November. But then at the close of the fiscal year end at the end of June, a union-negotiated COLA salary increase of 2.5% can kick in at the beginning of July. In the end, you will be making 7.5% more than you were making at the end of the previous October. By the time the next November rolls around you are again subject to a new performance evaluation - and another 5% step increase provided that you simply pass the review with a Satisfactory rating. I guess this is one reason I appreciate working in government. Nothing is subjective, everything is in-built and understood, and the merit-based system of annual performance evaluations is pretty straightforward. From a management standpoint, I guess it also makes their job easier with the salary scales already drawn out to take out any subjectivity in determining what increase "an employee is worth giving". In a sense, this system pretty much makes it up to the employee to navigate their own path and fairly work for what they're worth. They knowingly will already be aware of what their salary increase structure is for the job that they are working - and if they are unhappy with that, then they can freely seek to interview/compete to promote up into a higher position (provided that there are vacancies that open up). In another sense, this also maintains a "heirarchical orderliness" to the salary structure within an organization. Despite how incredibly good (favored?) one particular employee is, it still doesn't make sense for a boss to have one secretary making $21 an hour (because she was able to negotiate it) when the rest of the secretary pool on average are making $13/hr. It sets a precedent for other secretaries to think they could also aspire to negotiate that high in the future without really changing their "station", so to speak. (Of course, I realize that this 'system' mainly works on a corporate / big organizational level rather than I small business model)
No, male attractiveness is not subjective. It is objective.
Wait, that can't be right. No, it's not objective. It's objectionable. That's the correct word, right?
Anyway, I think that's what it is because I've had someone say that my male attractiveness was rather objectionable. I'll have to go back to the soup kitchen and ask that woman server just what she meant by that.
It depends, I guess. I mean, what if those same friends say that some Asians are also "fobby" because they can't speak English well? Well, I suppose it is still racist nonetheless. But at least they are being equal opportunity offenders.
I don't know man. Your situation kind of reminds me of a former athlete that continually replays in their head that one play they failed to make that could have won the big game. Or maybe that die hard fan that just cannot get over a heartbreaking loss that their favorite team suffered in the last seconds of a championship game. Regardless of how long ago that game was.I suppose the way you could get over your hang-up is the same way these groups of people go about getting over theirs: Drink heavily and whine about it until you lose all your friends. Or maybe just come to your senses and just realize how idiotic it is to obsess over something that's way back in the past.