What if a key to knowing what to do is built into everybody’s gut?

By David McElroy · March 15, 2019

I saw a woman at dinner tonight who I haven’t seen in a couple of years — and I felt the same electricity from her that I experienced six years ago when she first walked into my office.

I vividly remember that day. I was working at a college and she needed my help with something. I have no idea what we talked about, but I remember the day clearly because I knew — from the moment I saw her face — that she was one of those women.

I’ve never tried to explain this to anyone, because it’s been such a gut-level thing that I wasn’t conscious of it for a long time. All I know is that there were a very tiny number of women who come into my life who are “one of those women.” They are some very small group in which my gut recognizes something and says to me, “This is one of those women who might be a right partner for you.”

It’s completely from the gut. If my gut tells me that, I need to pay attention to the woman. If my gut doesn’t tell me that, I’m never going to fall for her, no matter how great she is otherwise.

I’ve spent years trying to figure out how our hearts and minds decide who to fall in love with. It’s always seemed like a mysterious process to me. I’ve known people who tried to approach it very rationally, but that approach doesn’t work for me.

Here’s what I’ve come to understand — at least for me.

Let’s say that one out of every thousand women has some mysterious internal thing — a gene or psychic aura or blood type or whatever the heck it is. Let’s say that it’s some rare undefined substance that means she’s a Type Q. (Or X or Y or whatever. It’s just a hypothetical “something.”)

Something in me recognizes a Type Q — and something in me knows that I will only fall in love with a Type Q. That doesn’t mean I’m going to fall in love with every Type Q. It doesn’t mean that any particular theoretical Type Q is going to fall for me. It doesn’t even mean that every Type Q is a match for me. It just means that something in me knows that the one I’m looking for will necessarily be among that tiny group which I recognize as a Type Q — or “one of those women.”

Every time I have ever fallen in love with a woman, it’s been someone who I recognized as “one of those” from the beginning. Even before I had consciously realized what was going on, I can look back and see that I felt some sense of identification — some sense of knowing — those women from the first moment I came across them.

I’m thinking about this tonight, of course, because of the woman I saw at dinner. She was one of those. She’s one of my theoretical Type Q women. I subsequently learned enough about her to know we weren’t a good match for other reasons. Our values are different. Our goals are different. We have too many fundamental differences to ever make us a good romantic match.

But something about her made her among that small group of possibilities.

I could tell you a similar story about every woman I’ve ever fallen in love with. From the moment I encountered her for the very first time, I knew she was “one of those” — which I’m calling Type Q here. And in other situations, there have been women who seemed like amazing potential partners — even some who have wanted me — who I never could make myself fall for, simply because my gut didn’t tell me that they were “one of those.”

The more I understand the way my mind works, the more I suspect that our gut already knows far more than we give it credit for.

I like to think of myself as a rational person, but the times I’ve gotten into trouble in my life have been the times I’ve disregarded what my gut knew — and tried to be overly analytical instead.

I can’t say for sure whether this is true for other people or not. I suspect it is, but I suspect most people are badly out of touch with what their gut is trying to tell them. Even after all these years of trying to understand, I’m still struggling to be able to hear it.

There aren’t many women who my gut recognizes as being Type Q. I haven’t run across one in a long time. They don’t share any particular looks or other outward characteristics. It’s just something my mind recognizes.

Just because a woman is a Type Q — and just because I fall in love with her, which sometimes happens — that doesn’t mean we will end up together. I might make stupid decisions that lead us apart. She might make stupid decisions that lead us apart. Lots of things can happen.

But I know that when I find the woman who wants to be my partner — who’s willing to choose me and I’m willing to choose her — my gut will have known from the beginning that she was “one of those women.”

I need to meet another one of those very soon. My gut will tell me when it happens.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts