Eating Disorders DSM-5

1. High selectivity is normal, especially as we get older

When you enter the post-20’s dating world, your life experience has shaped your preferences. You’ve likely developed clear ideas of what you want in a partner, both in terms of personality and compatibility.

• This means it’s natural to not feel interested in most people you date.
• Selectivity isn’t a problem—it often reflects self-knowledge and maturity.

2. Same-sex dating dynamics can be tricky

• In male same-sex dating, especially in places like Sydney, there can be a stronger focus on physical attraction in initial meetings.
• That can make it harder to find someone you genuinely click with emotionally or mentally, because a lot of initial dating chemistry may feel superficial or performance-based.

3. Emotional vs. physical attraction

• Your emotional and intellectual connection becomes [more] key to your interest.
• You may feel attracted physically to some, but if the emotional or personality resonance isn’t there, you simply won’t want to continue. That’s perfectly normal.

4. Reciprocity matters a lot

• Humans are wired for reciprocal interest: when it’s not returned, our brains often disengage emotionally to protect ourselves from disappointment.
• This can make dating feel discouraging because your standards and their feelings don’t always align.

5. Psychological patterns that could be at play

• High self-awareness: You know what you want and won’t settle.
• Emotional caution: After multiple dates where interest isn’t reciprocated, your mind may naturally limit attachment until someone truly matches your criteria.
• Confirmation bias in dating: You notice quickly when someone isn’t “right,” which is good for avoiding poor matches—but can also make you feel like genuine connections are rare.

6. This is very common for mature adults dating

• Many people in their late 30s–40s experience the same thing.
• Your dating pool is smaller because you’re looking for someone with very specific qualities (age, personality, emotional intelligence, compatibility).

Practical advice for dating in this context

a. Broaden [wisely] your dating strategies

• While selectivity is good, small adjustments in mindset can increase your chances:
  • Look beyond initial “type” indicators and give people a bit more time to reveal personality.
  • Join social groups or interest-based communities (sports clubs, arts, volunteering, LGBTQ+ meetups). Often chemistry develops in shared activity contexts rather than first-date settings.

b. Focus on quality interactions

• Instead of increasing quantity, increase meaningfulness: fewer, more intentional dates with people you have some natural overlap with (values, lifestyle, humor).
• Online apps can be helpful, but try to filter for shared interests or mutual values to save time and emotional energy.

c. Work on internal calibration

• Reflect on what triggers your strong attraction. Are there patterns (personality, energy, humor, confidence)?
• This helps to recognize potential even if it’s not immediately intense, and also helps articulate your preferences clearly to prospective dates.

d. Manage expectations

• It’s normal for the dating ratio (you like → they like) to be low, especially with high selectivity. Patience is key.
• Celebrate the small wins: every connection you explore, even if it doesn’t last, builds social and emotional insight.

e. Emotional self-care

• Rejection is part of the process and rarely personal—it’s more about compatibility.
• Maintain supportive friendships, hobbies, and self-affirmation to avoid over-investing emotionally in every date.

Mindset shift suggestion

Instead of thinking:

“There are very few people I want to see again, and they don’t feel the same way”

Try:

“I’m selective and I know what I want. Meeting the right person may take time, but each date helps me understand myself and my preferences more clearly.”

This subtle mindset shift reduces pressure and anxiety, while keeping your standards intact.

Historical Context

Historically, mental illness and addiction have been misunderstood and stigmatized. For much of history, these conditions were seen as moral failings or character flaws rather than medical issues. This has led to a persistent stigma that continues to influence societal attitudes.

Lack of Awareness and Education

There is still a significant lack of awareness and education about mental health and addiction. Many people do not understand that these conditions are medical issues that require treatment, just like physical illnesses. This lack of understanding contributes to negative attitudes and discrimination.

Media Representation

Media often portrays mental illness and addiction in a negative light, reinforcing stereotypes and misconceptions. These portrayals can shape public perception and contribute to the stigma surrounding these conditions.

Criminalization

Addiction, in particular, has been heavily criminalised. This has led to a perception of addiction as a criminal issue rather than a health issue, further entrenching stigma and discrimination.

Internalised Stigma

Individuals with mental illness or addiction often internalise the stigma they experience, leading to feelings of shame and low self-worth. This can prevent them from seeking help and support, perpetuating the cycle of stigma and discrimination.

Healthcare System

Even within the healthcare system, biases and stigma can affect the quality of care provided to individuals with mental illness or addiction. This can lead to inadequate treatment and support, further exacerbating the issue.

Social and Cultural Factors

Social and cultural factors also play a role in how mental illness and addiction are perceived. Different cultures have varying attitudes towards these conditions, which can influence how they are treated and supported.

The differential treatment of treatment-resistant substance use disorder (SUD) and treatment-resistant cancer by society can be attributed to several factors:

1. Perception of Control

Substance use disorders are often perceived as a result of personal choices or moral failings, whereas cancer is seen as an uncontrollable disease. This perception leads to stigma and blame towards individuals with SUD, while those with cancer are more likely to receive sympathy and support.

2. Historical Stigma

Historically, substance use has been stigmatised and criminalised, leading to a societal view that addiction is a choice rather than a medical condition. In contrast, cancer has been recognized as a medical condition requiring treatment and compassion.

3. Media Representation

Media often portrays substance use in a negative light, emphasising criminality and moral failure. Cancer, on the other hand, is often depicted with empathy and urgency, highlighting the need for medical intervention and support.

4. Healthcare System

The healthcare system has historically been more equipped to handle cancer treatment, with extensive research, funding, and specialized care. SUD treatment has lagged behind, with fewer resources and less comprehensive care options.

5. Complexity of Treatment

Treatment-resistant SUD involves complex psychological, social, and biological factors, making it challenging to treat effectively. Cancer treatment resistance, while also complex, has seen significant advancements in research and technology, leading to more effective treatments.

6. Social and Cultural Factors

Cultural attitudes towards substance use and addiction vary widely, with some societies viewing it as a personal failing. Cancer is generally viewed more universally as a disease that requires medical intervention.

REFERENCES

Substance Use Disorder and Stigma

Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care. (2024). Initiatives and programs. Retrieved from https://www.health.gov.au/about-us/what-we-do/initiatives-and-programs

Morrison, A. P., Birchwood, M., Pyle, M., Flach, C., Stewart, S. L. K., Byrne, R., Patterson, P., Jones, P. B., Fowler, D., & Gumley, A. I. (2013). Impact of cognitive therapy on internalised stigma in people with at-risk mental states. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 203(2), 140-145. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.112.112110

Wood, L., Byrne, R., Burke, E., Enache, G., & Morrison, A. P. (2017). The impact of stigma on emotional distress and recovery from psychosis: The mediatory role of internalised shame and self-esteem. Retrieved from https://repository.essex.ac.uk/21927/1/woodpr2017.pdf

Cancer Treatment and Stigma

American Cancer Society. (2023). Cancer treatment and survivorship. Retrieved from https://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatments-and-side-effects.html

National Cancer Institute. (2022). Cancer treatment (PDQ)–Patient version. Retrieved from https://www.cancer.gov/types/treatment-pdq/patient/cancer-treatment-pdq

World Health Organization. (2021). Cancer treatment and palliative care. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/cancer/prevention/diagnosis-screening/cancer-treatment-palliative-care/en/