21st Century Relationships

"Not Good Enough"

2012-03-15T12:57:00.002-07:00

Growing up, I frequently took - or was placed into - the role of peacemaker. Whatever struggles occurred in my family, or between friends, I tended to be the person who tried to calm things down, offer support of some kind, or defend those who were being treated poorly. On the positive end, this helped fine tune the call to serving others in the world I have always had. On the other hand, it also fine tuned my desire to be liked, as well as people pleasing skills like excessive efforts to get along and avoid conflict.

With dating, especially early on in the process, some of that old baggage can still come in and take over. So, I was interested in the following post by Natalie from Baggage Reclaim. She writes:

Earlier on in my life, I came to believe that it’s really important to do what people expect or tell you to do or be. No-one specifically stated this but through interactions and observations, I deduced that you get loved, respected, cared for, trusted, and valued when you’re what others want you to be, which feeds very ‘nicely’ into believing that this is why love and like doesn’t happen or is withdrawn. Me being happy and others being happy with and liking/loving me became intrinsically linked to looking for some tipping point of pleasing others where if I loved, gave, twisted, and contorted myself into a Transformer, I’d be ‘good enough’.

Not being "good enough" is a view that has plagued me, probably since my early childhood. Although it's impact on other areas of my life has diminished, when it comes to dating and love relationships, I still find myself working with internal monologues coming from that place. Much of it, for me, is tied to how the women I am dating or have an interest in might view my unique and unorthodox ways of living and seeing the world.

When I have gone on first dates, reoccurring thoughts like the following have sometimes been hard to shake:

"She really liked talking with me, and was impressed with me, but only as a friend."

"She was just saying she admired your courage to do such and such, or live in such and such way, because she didn't know how else to respond."

"She'll find someone more "tangibles" (i.e. material benefits like a house, car, and well paying, stable job) and disappear from your life."

Even when in relationships, different, but similar in spirit thoughts have sometimes caused a lot of problems.

When I look back at one long term relationship, which ended about three and a half years ago, I can see how "not good enough" narratives ruled both of us. So many of the arguments we had came from a place of the other fearing total rejection, and bouncing back and forth between trying to do or say something to maintain "getting along," and then, when that got too exhausting, spilling into charged dialogues about mostly insignificant details or actions. Kind of sad stuff, but pretty common, isn't it?

Natalie writes:

When your chief concern is being validated by others, little do you realise how greatly that affects your actions because your focus isn’t living authentically – it’s trying to be what you think others want.

Had both of us been working from an internal locus that said "I'm inherently an excellent, lovable person right now," things would have been different. The mistakes we made would have been easier to work with, and differences of opinion or view easier to not only accept, but even, perhaps, embrace as a benefit to the relationship.

When it comes to something like a first date, though, these tendencies to want to get along, please, and be pleasant can be difficult to shrug off because to some degree, they are kind of expected.

The only thing that has really helped with break free of all of this is doing my best to drop off any expectations at all for a date. To just be in the experience, with the other person, and let things unfold as naturally as possible. Sometimes, that happens pretty well, other times, not so much.

How about you? Do you struggle with feelings of being "not good enough?" What have you done to work with them?

Confidence

2012-03-12T15:12:00.003-07:00

Confidence. In the dating world, it's one of the gold standards. Simply put, confident people are attractive. Sexy even.

However, it's fine line between confidence and arrogance. And furthermore, for those who are attached to how others view them, it doesn't take much to be thrown off into doubt and timidness.

People have told me before that I am a confident person, and to some degree, that's true. In recent years, I have been more direct and clear in my intimate relationships. For a good decade, I stood before classes of learners everyday and usually could talk or direct things so that learning occurred. In addition, I have been a leader in multiple non-profit communities, and have done a lot of social activist work, including lobbying legislative leaders.

At the same time, I have learned that such confidence can be fragile. Perhaps you have heard the kind of voices I sometimes hear. Like "You're not good enough" or "It will be really bad if you fail." Or maybe you're saying these things to yourself, but don't even hear it.

Whether you are still single and looking, or are in a relationship, it's important to pay attention to what you are telling yourself. Especially when you feel afraid, confused, or angry.

Simply developing an ability to hear undercutting self-talk lessens its power over you. Even if you still sometimes believe you aren't good enough, or that whatever mistake you made renders you a failure - just bringing those stories into a conscious place is a major step.

I think a lot of us have this idea that confident people rarely feel afraid, upset, or confused. That they sail through dates without worry, and have little trouble when they are in intimate relationships.

But all of that is simply a story. You don't have to be superhuman to be confident.

Just learn to see negative self talk for what it is: a story that doesn't serve you.

Chasing After Instant Chemistry is Foolish

2012-03-04T10:28:00.002-08:00

Instant chemistry. The story goes that when you meet "the one," you'll have this explosion of attraction that will lead you down wedded bliss for the rest of your lives. Hollywood movies and television shows gush variations on this theme. Dating advice columnists build manifestos on it. Teenagers dream about it as they begin dating, and even through the challenges and hardships, carry pieces of that narrative with them far into adulthood.

There's much to pick apart in the story, but for today I'll just focus on the chemistry thing. The following is from a blogger who has been posting her online dating experience stories. She writes:

It was going on two hours and we decided to call it a night. I was disappointed in myself because I couldn’t see anything wrong with Kevin, but for some reason again, I wasn’t interested. I didn’t find that chemistry—that elusive instant chemistry—that I’ve been looking for.

When I read this, I felt a twinge of sadness. Because in my experience, instant chemistry has almost always been a lie. The times I have had that flash-bang chemistry, that I gotta screw your brains out and never leave your side kind of thing, have been crash and burn events. A few weeks or a month of hotness, followed by the realization that we had little in common. Or our values were wildly different.

With every woman I have dated for a longer period of time, including those I ended up having long term relationships with, there was a more gradual build up. Which is not to say that it began with nothing. Some connection was there right away, but the level of that connection to time to uncover. Took shared experience to see whether it was fleeting or something deeper.

Here's the thing about chemistry. Unless you know someone from a different context (friendship, co-worker, etc.), you are meeting a total stranger. You tend to know next to nothing about them, and so whatever is pulling you towards them is unclear, unexamined, and untested. You have no idea if what you experience on the first date is their true selves or some mask they have developed to weather the dating storm. You don't know how this person will react when the inevitable stresses/conflicts of a relationship occur. You don't even know if they will want anything more than a hot night or two of sex.

Seriously, believing that instant chemistry is the main ingredient of your dating dish is delusional. Painfully delusional. It's as if people have this idea that everything will just fall into place right away, which doesn't happen even between couples that experienced that kind of chemistry in the beginning.

In fact, I would argue that the worst aspect of the story is the ways in which it lies to us after you meet someone. The challenges of learning each others' way in the world are either diminished, or considered signs that things aren't working out. The natural, and needed, growth that comes from working through conflict together is left out entirely. And the pressure for everything to be fucking fantastic all the time is heightened. Which is tragic, given how nothing is always fantastic, not even the most wonderful, fulfilling relationship.

It's time to shed these lies. They aren't serving anyone, and they don't lead to lasting love.

Face it: You Probably Love Drama as Much as the Next Person

2012-02-27T08:06:00.003-08:00

When I was steeped in the brew of online dating, one phrase that was commonplace amongst the profiles was "No drama." Sometimes it was put as simple as that. Other times, the writer would go on and on about the lying, cheating, arguing, fussing, and fighting dudes they had dated in the past. I don't have enough experience reading mens' profiles to know if similar kinds of comments are frequent, but I don't think they are all that different from women on this issue.

Most of us, on some level, know that drama isn't helpful to our relationships. Too much of it is a major drain on our time and energy. It undermines trust. It sometimes leads to overt violence, and generally leads to misery, regardless of its form.

However, how many of you can honestly say you don't get sucked into relationship drama very much? How many of you feel good about how you handle the regular ups and downs of a relationship?

I'm guessing the numbers aren't very high.

Let's get more specific. Say you have been dating someone for awhile. You have gotten to know each other to the point where you think you "really know" the other person. You are even to the level where you can sometimes predict how they will act. How they might think about this or that. In fact, maybe it's more than sometimes. Maybe you usually know what's going to happen.

Every longer relationship I have ever been in has hit a place like this. I thought I knew most of what there was to know about my partner. And she often seemed to think the same.

What happens? A level of boredom and/or inertia would set in. It was often hard to tell the difference between one week and the next. One conversation and the next. The same themes would come up, get rehashed again and again.

One challenge during my first long term relationship, for example, was that I didn't get along very well with my girlfriend's best friend. We just didn't have much in common, and I often struggled to maintain any sort of conversation with her. Now, this wouldn't have been such an issue if it weren't for the fact that nearly every weekend I went to see my girlfriend, her best friend would call up, wanting to do something. Sometimes, I wondered if some jealousy was driving this, as well as a desire to help break us up. However, I hadn't learned yet how to effectively address conflict in a conversation with a partner, so I mostly kept my frustration to myself, until it eventually spilled over.

One Friday evening, my girlfriend and I were just finishing dinner when the phone rang. I hadn't seen her in a few weeks, and was thinking that it would be really great to just stay in, watch a movie, and make love. (Why the long gap between visits? We lived in different cities at that point, something that grew problematic fairly quickly.)

She picked up the phone. It was S, her best friend, wanting to play something closely resembling celebrity charades. I felt myself tensing up, knowing what was coming.

"Hey Nathan," my girlfriend called from the other room. "S. wants us to come over."

"Rrrr."

She keeps talking for another minute or so, before saying "What was that?"

"Oh, Christ, I guess so."

More conversation, and then "We don't have to ..."

"You know I hate that game!" (Actually, I pretty much hated her best friend at that point, but the game was a much easier, safer target.)

"What game?"

She starts talking again, reassuring S. that it will be ok.

"That damned celebrity game!"

"Come on," she said, covering the phone receiver, "I'll give you something good when we get back home."

"Every time I come over, we have to go over there. Every time!"

She goes back to the conversation with S., while I sit stewing in the other room.

After a few minutes, she walks in and says "I told her we would be over in 45 minutes. We have enough time to ..."

"Oh, forget it. Let's just go."

She sat down on her bed, and we sat in silence for about 15 or 20 minutes. Eventually, I reluctantly agreed to go, and we went.

I can imagine now how torn she probably felt, that time, and so many others. Wanting to please her best friend, and also me. Given that both of us could be pretty stubborn and difficult, experiences like that must have caused her a lot of grief.
And yet, it had also become so routine that I had come to expect it. The phone call. The invite to do something I didn't want to do. The sex bribe, or rushed sex before heading out. I knew that I wanted things to be different, but didn't know how to go about making them different. For a long time, I was too afraid of losing her. Eventually, though, I was simply too afraid of being alone, and having to start over on the relationship front.

I am not someone who seems to thrive on drama in some peculiar way. The kind of thing that happened in the example above has always felt torturous to me, something I tried to avoid even while doing it.

And yet sometimes, I have picked fights in an attempt to either change the situation or end the relationship. With the same girlfriend, towards the end of our time together, I chose to argue the merit of Christmas presents. She had asked me what I wanted for Christmas, and after I said nothing, I went on to stress how commercialized the holidays have gotten, and why I just didn't like it anymore. I actually hadn't like Christmas for years, and was, by that time, really feeling like our relationship needed to be done. But I couldn't quite end it. So we fought about presents instead.

Sometimes, I have engaged in internal dramas judging my partner or myself. She never listens to me. She's always late. I'm never good enough. I am always rejected in the end. In fact, during that argument over gifts, I actually felt like I didn't deserve anything. That I wasn't a good enough boyfriend to be getting a present from her.

The same lack of self-esteem that brought those thoughts to bear, was exactly what was behind my inability to speak candidly about how I felt whenever S. would call.

Drama operates differently for each of us.

What's below the drama?

A thwarted desire to grow is often there. For self growth. For growth in my partner. For growth and maturing of the relationship itself.

Grief. Sometimes, I realize that something isn't going to change. Or that it won't change anytime soon. Years ago, I was struggling with anger, and it became clear to both me and my girlfriend at the time that I would need to do a lot more work in order to be a more calm, less reactive partner.

Confusion. I have come to think that some of the drama we bring into our lives is completely tied to something we are confused about. Maybe we don't know what we want and so we up the ante. Or perhaps we do know what we want, but can't figure out how to get it.

These are a few core examples of what I have witnessed in myself after reflecting on relationship drama.

How about you? What do you think the drama you have experienced was about? As always, any comments or questions on anything in the post are welcome.

Why Trying to "Be More Feminine or Masculine" is a Trap

2012-02-23T08:41:00.003-08:00

I have been thinking a lot about gender lately. How so much of what we think is "biological" is not. How a lot of social scientists seem obsessed these days with doing studies to "prove" those biological narratives. And how people love to gobble up said studies, never mind that they tend to be riddled with sexism, and driven by patriarchal notions of what it means to be a man or a woman.

Here is a quote from a recent post on the blog And That's Why You're Single:

I was working with two women on their profiles yesterday. Both women made it a point to express their love of baseball and beer or golf and sailing. When I explained to them that most men don’t see that as a selling point, they asked why. My answer was pretty simple: because those things aren’t feminine. That and most men aren’t looking for someone to go golfing with or to attend a Yankees game and throw back a few brews. They can do that with their guy friends. It’s not a bad thing if a woman enjoys those activities. It’s just not something that scores them points in a dating profile or on a the first few dates.

This is the mistake so many women make in their profiles. They try too hard to seem like “one of the guys.” They talk up their jobs, their financial security, all the athletic activities they do, and they don’t showcase their more uniquely feminine traits.

I'm struck by what feels like a paradox to me. On the one hand, the advice to offer more "feminine" qualities is probably fairly good, given current social conditions. The majority of men (and women for that matter) do still seem to be operating on the gender constructions we have inherited.

However, I couldn't in good conscious give such advice. I seriously question the ways in which different activities get attached to "feminine" and "masculine." A love of baseball doesn't have anything to do with being a man or being a woman, and it's silly to perpetuate such ideas. More to the point, though, I am entirely exhausted with the deeper set of assumptions that get tied to gender. For example, the idea that women are more "emotional" than men. Or the converse that men are more "rational." Underlying both of those statements is the view that reason and logic are superior to emotions, something I completely disagree with.

Given this quandary, what might be some good advice to people on the dating scene?

Here are a few ideas I have. I encourage readers to chime in with others.

1. Learn how to tell a well rounded story about yourself. Forget about all this feminine/masculine, alpha/beta nonsense. Who are you? What are you passionate about? What motivates you to get up every morning?

2. Become skilled in speaking about what you want in a relationship. Just saying you want a long term relationship or to get married isn't enough. What qualities within a relationship are most important to you? How slow or fast do you want it to move? What are a few deal breakers?

3. Do your best to let go of comparisons to others. This is generally good advice. What I am speaking about here specifically, though, is the ways in which people tend to treat dating these days as a competition. When you think you are competing for someone's attention and interest, you tend to build a story about yourself that "looks good" and "sells," instead of just being yourself. In fact, I remember awhile back while I was doing online dating revising my profile based on the thought that it was better to downplay many of the most important things in my life because they aren't at all mainstream interests. All that lead to was meeting women who didn't share enough of my worldview to even maintain a decent conversation.

Your thoughts?

Does Longevity in the Past = Mature Dater Today?

2012-02-15T14:40:00.000-08:00

This post and the discussion that follows about signs someone might be a good bet for being in a committed relationship is worth a read. Both for the positive points it makes, such as suggesting asking yourself if someone seems emotionally mature or not, and also the ones I believe aren't effective. Let's take a closer look at two points that appear to be good signs on the surface, but actually aren't in and of themselves.

1. Holding the same job for several years.

On the one hand, it demonstrates that someone is responsible enough to show up to work, get something done, and keep in the good graces of their boss(es). At the same time, it can also be a demonstration that someone has zero interest in growing as a person, doesn't have a terribly diverse set of skills or interests, or is more invested in being comfortable than in challenging themselves.

To be honest, I personally don't put a lot of stock in someone's job history when it comes to dating. I, myself, have been everything from the guy in the same job for several years to unemployed for periods of time. My ability to commit or not commit to someone really hasn't changed with my job status. It's always been related to other factors, such as the level to which I was or wasn't over relationships from the past.

2. Having long term friendships is a positive sign.

Honestly, this one feels the same as the last. Some people simply maintain the same old friendships from their younger days, not because those friendships are mutually enriching, but because they are comfortable and provide a buffer from loneliness, among other things. In addition, there are those who have long term friendships that are primarily focused either around things like shared substance abuse, or are connections with single dimensions (such as guys who love the same sports teams, but really have nothing else in common.)

Overall, it's more important to get a sense of the quality behind any longevity in someone's personal history, instead of taking it as an immediate sign that someone has their shit together. In this age of consumer driven dating, it's really easy to get suckered by what turn out to be superficial criteria. Instead of ticking things off your list, go deeper and see beyond the flash to the substance (or lack of substance) within.

A Few Thoughts on Conflict

2012-02-07T10:59:00.000-08:00

If you’re someone who pushes away your partner whenever you are suffering, odds are that don’t have much trust in the relationship. And if you are someone who doesn’t give any space, who thinks that any “alone time” during a period of struggle is a problem, then odds are that you probably don't trust the relationship.

The key to dealing with challenges in any relationship is balance. You have to learn to give your partner enough space and time to process. And/or cool down if he or she is really upset and can't handle a conversation right now. You also have to learn how to re-engage, and not simply hide out until things "blow over." Because more often then not, something that goes unaddressed will return later, sometimes in a much stronger, more difficult way.

It's very much the case that I am one of those guys who needs time and space to process difficulties. Not to say I can't handle conflict in the moment, but more that for bigger issues, I tend to be slower to understand what it is that's going on with myself. As a student of meditation, yoga, and other spiritual disciplines, I naturally gravitate towards being alone with myself during difficult times, and then later talking things out and making decisions with the help of friends, family, and my partner, if I'm with someone.

This kind of approach hasn't always gone over well with the women I have been with. At least one long term girlfriend wanted to hash it all out right away, even if it got really messy and confusing. Now, there's nothing wrong with messy. Sometimes, it's absolutely the best idea to hash things out in the here and now. However, when things devolve into yelling, insults, and wildly off accusations, I think a different approach is called for.

One thing I have learned through all of this is how to be more vocal about what I need during such times. And yet, when I'm feeling weakened by something difficult going on in life, it's just not as easy to muster up the energy to say "I really would like this from you." Or "Could you not do that?" So, it's good to practice doing this kind of thing when you feel good, and when you're partner is doing also doing well.

In the end, the real balance point in a relationship is finding a way to honor your partner's natural way of coping, while also doing the same for your own. Sometimes, you have to adapt a bit, moving towards how your partner does something. Other times, it's your partner who moves towards your way.

This is the dance of a healthy relationship. Conflict is, if handled well, an opportunity for each person to grow.

Your thoughts?

People Are Too Into "Having Options" These Days

2012-02-04T10:46:00.000-08:00

I just talked to a friend of mine who has been seeing someone for about 2 1/2 months now. A little while back, he asked her if she was interested in a relationship with him, and she said there is "potential."

In a blog post I read this morning, the author wrote about having too many options, but also liking to date folks with busy schedules and who aren't "needy" or "clingy."

On another blog, several men complained about not getting enough responses from women online, and yet, at least a few seemed quick to reject the idea of making a commitment, which makes me wonder what their dating profiles say.

A few weeks back, I read a story about a woman who fell in love rather quickly, and then started having a few doubts about the relationship. Almost the entire comment thread was filled with people telling her that the guy was probably hiding something, or that falling in love quickly is always trouble, or that she might get burned. All of which has some truth to it, but at the same time, so many of the comments seemed built on projections,and were not responding to the given story.

I think many of us are addicted to options. To keeping the door open in case something else better is found around the corner. We've been marketed to in this way endlessly. Our schooling is filled with messages that having choices is the pinnacle of freedom.

All the while, when we have too many choices, we tend to suffer, feel overwhelmed, and often choose to stay in limbo. It's like the obsession with multitasking, which seems like a good skill, but which research is proving to be much more a liability than anything else.

You can't develop a deep, conscious relationship with someone if you're juggling two, three, or four others at the same time. You also can't develop that relationship if part of you believes someone better might come along someday.

Perhaps someone better will come along someday, but what about RIGHT NOW? Where are you now?

In the end, you can't really love someone if your multitasking your relationship. It's just fine if you're just into something casually. But if you want something more, you're fooling yourself behaving in ways like this.

Fear in Dating and Relationships

2012-01-29T19:27:00.001-08:00

I want to expand a little bit on one item from a list I offered several months ago entitled 35 Things I Have Learned. Both of the following statements are pretty critical to work with if you are interested in developing a healthy, conscious relationship.

Fear is behind so many of the mistakes we make.

This might seem obvious, but I think it's worth taking a closer look. Fear can operate in several ways. First, there's actions. You might choose to do something because you are afraid that if you don't, your date or partner will react negatively. Or you might choose to not do something for the same reasons. Secondly, there's speech. For example, saying what you think the other person wants to hear. Or withholding certain key information to soften a conversation. Or reacting in an anxious or angry way to comments being made by your date or partner about something. Thirdly, there are none verbal cues. The body tensing up in response to certain actions or comments. Physically withdrawing from touch or even totally away from the other person in response to something.

In other words, fear manifests in many different ways, and it's good to keep that in mind when trying to understand your own behavior, as well as that of your date or partner.

Another reason I am bringing up fear is because it's a normal, human experience. And I think that it's vital to learn how to be ok with feeling fear, while at the same time, being able to act from a stronger place than it. When I am feeling fear in the context of a dating situation, I try to somehow give it some space. Sometimes this means focusing on my breathing. Or doing formal meditation practice. Or taking a walk or doing some sort of physical activity. Obviously, what you choose to do will depend upon the situation. However, the main point is to learn to refrain from simply acting out whenever fear arising.

Finally, instead of treating fear as an enemy, consider that it often is actually an ally. How many times have you been deeply afraid of something, only to find out later that there was a great discovery about your life right on the other side of that fear? What comes to mind to me is the realization I had during one long term relationship that the fears I had about losing her were actually not about HER, but about being alone. In exploring that fear, I was able to eventually wake up to the fact that we weren't really a good match, and that I was sticking the relationship out because I didn't want to be alone.

During the coming week, I want to invite you all to consider the ways fear manifests, or has manifested in your relationships. In addition, consider your relationship to fear itself. Do you see it as an enemy or ally? How do you handle fear when it comes up?

As always, your comments and ideas are welcome.

Does the Person You're Dating Make You Smile and Laugh?

2012-01-23T16:12:00.000-08:00

I hear a lot about folks wanting to find someone with a good sense of humor. It's almost one of those boilerplate pieces on the "master list" each of has carries about with us.

But you know what? I don't think humor is exactly what many of us are desiring. Perhaps the word is simply shorthand, but I can imagine plenty of readers out there who have, like me, met or even dated people with great senses of humor that weren't really a good match.

I think better questions to ask are ones like the following four:

Does the person I'm with easily bring a smile to my face, sometimes without even trying to?

Is laughter a regular part of our experience together?

Does his/her's humor add to the relationship?

Are we playful together?

I have had a few short term relationships with women who sometimes used humor to blame others, or avoid conflicts. Furthermore, I have dated genuinely "funny" women with whom I rarely, if ever, felt that spontaneous smiling and joy arising with. We could laugh at each others' jokes, but there wasn't any depth beneath that. It was more like entertaining each other, and when that wasn't happening, the basic level of happiness just wasn't present for the most part.

It's worth considering what lies beneath the surface of humor. Because it's easy to be attracted to folks with a good sense of humor, but there's a lot more to a conscious relationship than being funny.

Flaw Finding as Self Protection in the Modern Dating World

2012-01-19T12:32:00.000-08:00

I have noticed a common theme cropping up in discussions about relationships, and it's fairly paradoxical, which is why I find it so curious.

A lot of folks these day have become very good at finding flaws. Flaws in those they are going on dates with. Flaws in themselves. Flaws in the relationship they currently are in.

On the other hand, it's also the case that many of us seem to either minimize or miss all together the kinds of "issues" that make or break most relationships.

This isn't just about superficial complaints like "he snores" or "she's two years older than me." It's about an inability to determine what's important in a relationship over the long term, coupled with a strong overcoat of pessimism about the chances that any long term relationship will ever work.

Pessimism about love is mostly a defense mechanism, as well as an escape clause. It means that if you go through a rough patch with your partner, you can simply say "Ah, well, I guess it wasn't meant to be."

The problem is that we have all these scripts we believe are the gospel truth about how relationships should and shouldn't go. And then we try and match our experiences exactly to those scripts, instead of paying attention to what's actually happening, and how we feel about it. The relationship is going faster than your script says it's supposed to go, and you start wondering when the other shoe will drop, or what the other person's "agenda" is. The relationship is moving slower than your script says it should and you wonder if he/she truly loves you. In both cases, perhaps you have no other evidence to suggest that things are wrong, but because the narrative is so strong, you believe there's a problem anyway.

Online dating and other forms of "relationship shopping" certainly have plus sides, but one of the downsides is that it's heightened the flaw finding mechanism, while also creating the illusion that there's an endless array of possible partners out there if the one you are with isn't perfect enough. The whole structure of online dating sites encourage the brain to scan and reject, as well as scan and accept, as quickly as possible. And this scanning behavior slides often into our actual relationships themselves, especially in the early days when so much has yet to be discovered. Instead of paying attention for obvious red flags and a small, well considered list of deal breakers, it's as if you're a hungry tiger, constantly on the edge of leaping on any little difference or unanswered question as a sign that things are doomed.

And yet, it's also the case that a lot of us miss glaringly obvious deal breakers, sometimes for years. She repeatedly states that she doesn't want children, but the guy continues to stick with her, believing she'll change her mind. She's constantly making criticizing or belittling comments, but her girlfriend still believes they have a great relationship. Your values are completely different, but the sex is hot, so you stay together. The list goes on and on.

It all comes back to an inability to determine what's important in a relationship over the long term, and also understanding that every situation is different, and so how it looks and feels will be different as well. In other words, "what's important" can't be condensed into a concrete formula that you can apply each time you meet someone.

I sometimes wish I could be like so many of the others out there, dispensing black and white, concrete advice that people gobble up and then claim was "The Thing" that saved them. But mostly, that's just not how I see the world. I'd rather try and get to the roots of our problems and fail, then succeed at helping someone snip off only the current, unwanted flower.

Listening to Your Heart's Desire

2012-01-12T11:36:00.000-08:00

When I truly listen to what my heart is calling out, and trust it's wisdom, things tend to turn out well. Which isn't to say that everything goes "my way," but more that whatever happens, I am fully at peace. There's little or no second guessing. No frantic worrying spinning out in all directions. No guilt, shame, or long lasting suffering.

In an age where we have 24/7 access to other peoples' opinions, and are surrounded by an endless amount of subtle and not so subtle cues about what dating and relationships "should" look like, it's difficult to not get hooked by something "out there." You hear about the latest best seller dating book and think "Maybe that will have the answers I need." Or maybe your friends and family are constantly giving you opinions about who you are dating, and you feel torn between supporting your friends and living your own truth. Perhaps you've been taking the same approach to dating for years and find yourself feeling dead and lonely, but everyone else seems to be doing the same thing, and you're afraid to stand out in the crowd by doing something different.

If you feel swamped by all the dating opinions coming at you. If you feel stuck in patterns that don't serve you, or any relationship you are in. If you are afraid to take risks anymore because of the countless hurts you've experienced in the past.

If any or all of these are true, it's time to pause. Time to tune out the noise of the world around you and listen to what's coming up. To feel the fear. The confusion. The angst. The loneliness. To let all of that move through you until the truth of the moment calls. Everyone has had those moments when something seems to click, where all the effort to find an answer breaks down and suddenly a voice or an understanding appears and you know just what to do. A lot of us tend to think this kind of thing is accidental, or a stroke of good luck, but neither of those is really true.

You can learn to quiet down, slow down, and listen for the truth of the moment. And if you apply that skill to your dating life, I bet you'll start to see all the opinions and stories of others as just that: opinions and stories. Instead of being a slave to society's narratives about dating, or your friend's and family's narratives about dating, you can finally learn what is it that your heart desires in a relationship. And locating that, it will be that much easier to listen to the heart's desire of the person you're with. In other words, you can be fully alive and authentic with each other.

But it all starts with you, and your willingness to listen to your heart's desire, again and again.

What's Wrong With You? Being Over 30 and Single

2012-01-06T12:00:00.001-08:00

I wrote this post a little over 2 years ago. Most of still rings true to me today.

I've been reflecting on the experience of being single and over 30. It's an interesting place to be, partly because there are a lot of cultural assumptions that come with the territory. Two of my students, middle aged women from Ethiopia, asked me today why I don't have a car. I went into the various reasons - to be more environmentally-friendly, to save money, to get more exercise. They weren't convinced, and the one asked the other "Was he born in Minnesota? Is he from here?" After that was confirmed, the other went on to say "You have a family, you need a car. It's important." I then said "I'm single." They couldn't believe that one either. This opened the door to all kinds of questioning about when I would get married, and if, among other things, a rich woman with "a house and car" asked me to marry, would I do it. The whole conversation was pretty jovial, not heavy at all, but you can see some of the assumptions there.

But assumptions about relationships come not only from my immigrant and refugee students. They seem to arrive from all over the place, even from other 30+ single people. Here are some of the assumptions I have run into as a result of being single for at least part of the past three years - post 30 years old.

1. There must be something wrong with you if you're not coupled by now.

Somehow, it still surprises a fair amount of people that you can be well-adjusted and yet not ever married, or even close to getting married, at my age. Even some 30 plus singles have made comments to me like this, which makes you wonder they thought of themselves, given that we were in the same boat so to speak.

2. What about children? Certainly you want or have children, right?

This one seems to be especially true for female friends of mine who are 30 plus and single. And there still seems to be a cultural stigma around either not wanting children, or questioning whether you want children or not. Never mind that there 6 billion plus people on the planet, and hundreds of thousands of unwanted children languishing away in orphanages, group homes, and other places. It's one thing to wonder about someone like me if you're from a war-torn country where children sadly die fairly often, and where childbirth itself is still a fairly difficult, sometimes dangerous process. Or from a country where family and relationship structures are highly controlled and norms adhered to because of what is considered culturally acceptable. I question these, too, and sometimes have "interesting" discussions with my students.

But to have such an attitude in the U.S., or some other post-industrial nation is, in my opinion, a failure to step outside of the reproduction box to see that not everyone needs to get married and have children to be well-adjusted and happy. I say this more firmly because there has been much more talk about accepting alternative or complimentary approaches to living and being in countries like the U.S. We like to tell other nations we are democratic, open, free, etc. And yet, we still seem to really like our white picket fence, two children, car in the big garage fantasy. So much so that many of us go around questioning and subtly or not so subtly go around shaming those who either don't fit that norm now, or who never wanted to fit that norm in the first place.

3. Are you gay? Maybe even just a little bit?

Lines like this reveal so much. The heterosexual norm is so easy to threaten that simply being an older single raises alarms. And notice how there's a not so subtle bias playing out in lines like this, which link "not normal" with being gay. The same may be said when the word gay is replaced with lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, or any other sexual minority. I have a friend who went on a date with someone who questioned him repeatedly about his sexuality solely because he works as a hairdresser. She couldn't believe - because she failed to step out of cultural stereotypes - that he could be both a male hairdresser and interested in women.

And what if someone is part of the GLBT community? Somehow, getting a confirmation on such a question teaches you nothing about why someone is single. I have another friend who has spent much of her adult life single, and really quite content being single, and has only in the past few years started dating a bit. Although she has been attracted to both men and women in the past, she often chose to focus on the work and studying she was doing, and really didn't feel she was missing out on something by not dating.

4. Aren't you terribly lonely? How do you do it?

This line of thinking is understandable in some ways. Most of us want a close companion to share our lives with. And yes, sometimes I feel lonely, but not nearly as much as some people seem to think I would given my situation. However, there is still strong assumptions behind thoughts like this. First, that people want to be coupled at all times, and can barely handle it when they are not. And two, that those who say they are just fine without a partner are somehow lying or maladjusted. Or, as a few have suggested to me, maybe "you should become a monk." In other words, being along like this as 30 plus adult somehow is linked with a spiritual calling in some people's minds. This is not to say that such a link is never true, but it suggests the deep split we often have when it comes to sexuality and relational intimacy on the one hand, and spirituality on the other hand.

I find all of this very curious, and yet clearly it's reflective of not only cultural issues with people that don't "fit in," but also an example of how strongly our minds want to pin things down, have solid answers about what reality is and how it works. A single man in his thirties raises a few eyebrows. A single woman in her thirties seems to raise a few more eyebrows. A single person who's gender you can't quite define raises many eyebrows. And this seems more so when these people have no children. Single mothers and fathers get a lot of grief, too, but the children are markers of normalcy for them. I don't have that kind of marker, and I'm not even sure I want to. And saying this, some might wonder what I think of children, as if the two issues have to be linked.

Marrige and Happiness: Why the National Marriage Project's Study is Not Trustworthy

2012-01-02T16:56:00.001-08:00

There's been a fascinating debate on Evan Katz's blog about a recent study conducted by the University of Virgina's National Marriage Project. To be honest, this study strikes me as an obnoxiously biased, manipulative document designed to promote Judeo-Christian centric, nuclear families. The Institute for American Values, which runs the Marriage Project where the study came from, is largely funded by two foundations, the John Templeton and the Bradley, that are widely recognized as promoting neo-conservative and Christian conservative viewpoints. Furthermore, the Institute has a decades-long track record of actively lobbying the U.S. Congress and White House to promote their views on marriage and family, something that former Presidents' Clinton and Bush did regularly during their time in office.

Evan happens to like the study, regardless of it's potential issues. Given that he runs a business that caters to women seeking marriage, it makes sense that he would promote positive views of marriage on his blog. However, I argued in the comment below that this particular study isn't even very hopeful for a lot marriage-minded people, never mind those who aren't interested in marriage.

Perhaps one of the challenges here is that a lot of see the very limited agenda of the researchers, and have a hard time letting go of that. I know I do. One other thing I didn’t mention above was that somewhere in their research, I read a statement saying young men “need marriage” as a “civilizing factor,” something I find insulting as a man in his mid-30s who has never been married. The more I read of their research, the more I felt that they actually have a pretty negative view of people as individuals, and basically are pushing for heterosexual people to get married and have children so that said group can “save” society from the rest of us. Furthermore, the entire thing is tiered so that married, “church going” couples are presented as the best model. The gushing about church-going husbands being “more attentive” and more “committed” to their wives took the cake for me, but there were plenty of other choice moments.

It wasn’t terribly hard for me to think up an opposite set of conclusions for this study. Just replace married church going couples with single atheists in terms of most happy. Here’s a controversial study that concluded that non-religious folks have “better sex lives.” http://www.alternet.org/sex/150978/atheists_do_it_better%3A_why_leaving_religion_leads_to_better_sex/?page=entire And then there’s Bella DePaulo, who is constantly advocating that single folks are happier in a manner that might considered opposite the Marriage Project folks. http://belladepaulo.com/singles-research-and-writing/ Those are just two examples of what I’d see as opposite extremes. I think the sex study has some valid points, and Bella is fascinating. However, in both cases, the strong biases and agenda’s present are difficult to ignore. And I also think that the sex study researchers had a pretty negative, stereotypical view of religious folks, and Bella’s writing isn’t terribly kind to married folks.

Which leads me to my major point. When research comes to such narrow conclusions, ones that suggest the vast majority of people aren’t doing life right, and that in order to do it right, they need to do X, Y, or Z, it’s hard not either feel bad about yourself if you don’t fit, or to be very resistant to that research’s conclusions. It makes sense to me that you’d share research that would help your clients and readers who want to get married feel more confident that marriage is worth doing. It just seems to me that this particular study offers a very narrow picture of what a “happy marriage” consists of, and is likely to leave a lot of readers – ones who want to get married or want to improve their marriage – out in the cold.

One thing I want to agree with from the study is the emphasis they placed on basing relationships on generosity and service. It makes sense to me to link happiness and well-being to generosity and service, and so while I greatly disagree with most of the study, I applaud that particular piece of it.

What do you think of all this? If you read some of the study, do you agree with it?

Is Your Resolution to Find Love in the New Year?

2011-12-31T16:12:00.000-08:00

The second half of this post is similar to the one I offered on my other blog. However, I think it's important to share here as well.

Many single folks make New Year's resolutions related to romantic relationships, and then ramp up the search for that special someone. If you are considering doing something like that, please read my blogger friend Maia's post first. She offers a more in depth approach to planting seeds for the new year, one that I have used myself.

As many of you probably know, "resolutions" almost always failure. Have you ever asked yourself why that goal to lose 10 lbs or to choose a more healthy partner falls flat time and again?

Let's face it. The vast majority of our resolutions aren't coming from a deep enough place to succeed. Many of them are simply born out of desperation to change something in your life you do not like. While others are built on hope and wishful thinking, neither of which do anything to bring something into reality.

With that said, Here is the list of specific intentions that I have come up with so far for 2012. The list was prompted a bit early this year by a friend's Facebook call for folks to share with each other. Everything on the list above has come up repeatedly for me over the past several weeks, and some of them are carry overs from the list I made last year.

1) Develop creative, transformative work that support me financially, emotionally, and spiritually.

2) Cultivate gratitude daily.

3) Finish one of the book projects I have in mind.

4.) Be fully open to new relationships in their many forms.

5). Take more intelligent risks.

Note that these aren't off the cuff ideas, nor are they quick-fix goals that I hope will make me feel better.

Notice that only one of the five is something with a concrete end point. That's about the right ratio. 1 in 5. There's nothing wrong with having something really specific in your list, but if it's not grounded by deeper intentions, odds are it won't mean much to you even if it happens.

One of the yoga teachers in my teacher training program reminded me, during a yoga nidra session yesterday, that we can all go deeper. To look beneath for something that encompasses all the rest of your intentions. And so, as I settled in to the nidra practice, this arose:

I trust that the universe is providing what I need.

There's not much else I feel compelled to say. May you have an excellent new year, and may your greatest intentions come to fruition.

Searching for Your Soulmate?

2011-12-29T11:33:00.000-08:00

That's a road filled with landmines my friends. As is the notion that when you meet the right someone, you'll "just know."

Most of us don’t actually know how to read our gut feelings very well. We think we know what's going on, and whether someone is right for us or not, but so often, the guesses turn out wrong. Or fairly off anyway.

Why is this? Because our true experience tends to be obscured by a whole lot of artificial rules, culturally-sanctioned stories, and even silly fairy tales. You meet someone, go on a date or two, and then move on because he or she didn't blow you out of the water with hot sexiness. Or you meet someone who becomes a friend and a great relationship develops, but because you read in some dating book not to date friends, you remain single. Or you've been in a relationship for a few months, can't figure out if you love the other person or not, and so you bail. The variations are endless, but all of it comes down to a failure to access, and then listen to, your deepest wisdom.

If you're like me, you probably enjoy reading a bit of dating advice, and also other folks stories about their dating experiences. However, there's a danger to this kind of activity. Specifically, that the words and ideas of others can overtake your own if you're not careful.

Regular readers might notice that a lot of the advice I offer on this blog points back to reflecting on your experiences, cutting through internal dialogues, and paying attention to what's actually happening in your relationships. One of the main reasons for this is that I don't want MY ideas to control YOUR process. Instead, I'd like what I have to say to assist the unfolding wisdom you already have hanging around in your core.

I truly believe that we each can access a knowing about whether someone is right for us or not. However, that knowing isn’t going to happen overnight. You need to spend a significant time with someone. And you also need to repeatedly question all those stories about how it’s “supposed to be” until you see what actually is.

At the end of the day, so much of what constitutes a successful, conscious relationship depends upon each of the participants willingness to grow together. To shed yesterday's half-truths and awaken to today's callings.

So, as the new year comes upon us, set an intention to begin with yourself. To reflect upon where you have been,and what you have learned from the past. And to let go of whatever seems to be blocking your way to having true and deep connections, romantic or otherwise, filling your life.

Learn the Person You Are With

2011-12-26T09:08:00.000-08:00

This is the kind of simplistic gender narratives that drive me nuts. Well, not really, but still, why do people continue to believe in such easy explanations?

Women’s brains are wired for detail. Men, on the other hand, have brains that are wired for the big picture – they like to scan.

Take these example:

How was your day? Typically, men will answer it was OK; women will go into paragraphs of explanation
They had a baby. What was it? Men will reply it was a baby; women want the details – the sex, the weight, method of delivery etc
Women usually don’t give an abridged version of events; they relive it in detail (if it was good enough the first time to go through, it is good enough to relive in detail)

Bottom line: men want the bottom line not the details. Perhaps they even operate on a need to know basis. If it doesn’t affect them they probably don’t need to know.

So, in order words, men are basically self-focused creatures, while women are other-focused creatures.

I would argue that even in times when gender conditioning has been at it's most fierce, you could find plenty of within group variation, despite the social pressure to conform to acting certain ways. Furthermore, the idea that we are "wired" in such and such a way across gender is an excellent way of minimizing and denying socialization patterns. Like several thousand years of patriarchal norms that continue to place men above women, and in the process, also undermine the personhood of folks across the GLBTQ spectrum.

Now, that was a heady paragraph, wasn't it? And you're probably asking, "What does this have to do with my relationship or how I date?

An excellent question.

First off, I'm not one who tends to give heavy handed advice, but please, please don't believe these kinds of simple stories about people. They only contain a grain of truth, and they won't really help you interact better with your dates or partners.

Secondly, if you are someone who desires to be liberated from the old gender norms, this is exactly the kind of thinking to jettison.

And finally, remember this: we date and fall in love with individuals, not generalizations. So, while knowing something about gender norms might be helpful in some senses, in the end, the only way to develop a healthy, conscious relationship is to learn the person you are with.

Where is the Love?

2011-12-24T09:31:00.000-08:00

Love. Many of us love to be in love, and yet how often do we actually love each other well?

What's interesting to me is how humans struggle to exude love on the macro-level - loving all of creation as a manifestation of the divine - and also struggle to be accurate with our labeling when it comes to the specific people, places, and things in our lives.

Consider anything you might be addicted to. Like cigarettes. I have heard many people say they love cigarettes, but actually, when it comes down to it, they don't love cigarettes at all. In fact, some smokers downright hate cigarettes, but that warm embrace when the chips are down feeling that comes with smoking feels like a kind of love. Even though it really isn't. And the same thing is often true of our intimate relationships.

I can recall multiple times in the past when I claimed to love someone in a romantic sense when it really was lust. Or I was making the claim to keep the other person around until I figured out if I truly did feel love or not. Driven by fears of being alone, I would say those three words "I love you," and in the process override the uncertainty that comes with any new, or newer relationship. It's been done to me as well by a few women in my past. In fact, I can distinctly remember one former girlfriend's comment that she thought she loved me, which was followed less than a week later by a call for us to break up.

Love is beautiful and amazing and lifegiving, but it's not always easy to express, and it's almost guaranteed to bring up our most intimate fears and anxieties in the process. Because to love someone completely means to be fully vulnerable to the entire universe.

One of our biggest problems in actually finding love, and embodying love - whether with a beloved partner or for the whole of the universe - is that we're usually coming at it all from the outside in. Thinking that someone, some thing, some experience will bring it to us, failing to recognize that we are it. That we all contain love within, if only we'd stop and listen to ourselves more closely.

Whatever love actually is, in the end, it has to be experienced from the inside out. It's only through tapping into what is really your inherent nature, that you can discover that which is the stuff of intimate relationships with others.

May you have much love during the holidays this year. And may you all spend some time reflecting upon the ways in which you've mistaken something else for love in your relationships.

Sex Talks

2011-12-21T15:05:00.000-08:00

We had one of those lightning bolt connections - the kind of chemistry people always say they want, but which often ends up burning one or both people involved. As we made out one night, I kept thinking to myself, "Wow. This is awesome. I love spending time with this woman. She's smart and funny and sexy and blah, blah, blah." Then it hits me. Or rather she does. With a single sentence that changes everything. Pulling back a little bit, she looks me straight in the eyes, and says "I want to have a threesome with you and "so and so."

You might be thinking, "Oh, come on. Guys love that kind of thing." But that's really just a stereotype about men. It's never really been a fantasy of mine. The idea of multiples partners, whether as a one time thing or over the long term, mostly conjures up messy, dramatic images for me. The kind that make many movies box office hits. It seems hard enough to be with one person, truly be with him or her, giving your all, let alone more than one. So, when those words came out of her mouth, I was stunned out of my dreaming about where "we" might be going together.

The fortunate thing for both of us is that we ended up having an in depth talk about our sexual interests. Something people often fail to do, and then wonder why they're so miserable down the road. And we found out that we had a lot of differences, including the fact that she really wasn't into monogamy. Which was basically a relationship killer for me.

I'll be honest. I still find having these kinds of sex talks a little unnerving. And I'm not a constant follower of my own advice either. The situation in the story above was tailor made for such a discussion, but I doubt I would have had the same discussion so early on if she hadn't brought up the threesome issue.

Some people argue that the best time to share your sexual interests is before you become intimate with each other. I've done this a few times before, but am not sure it's the best way, or only way to go.

What are your thoughts about talking about sex with someone you're dating? Are you direct? What about timing? Or are you one of those people who never talks directly about it?

Rejected for Her Communication Skills

2011-12-16T11:52:00.004-08:00

I felt a twinge of recognition from both sides of the fence when I read this:

when we met for coffee and he did the Let’s-Just-Be-Friends thing, was that he said it was because of how I communicated. He said: “You know, I really like talking to you, and I liked having sex with you, but I feel like you have really high standards for relationship communication and I’m not sure I can meet those standards. Can we keep hanging out, but just be friends?”

On the bright side, he did his best to convince me that he really does want to be friends, so that made me feel good. As usual, though, the rejection still stung. I did my best not to take it personally, but that’s always difficult. I tried to keep in mind that people are different, but sometimes that’s difficult too. For me, the take-home message seemed to be: “Hey Clarisse, quit trying to actually talk openly about your relationships! You’re unnerving even the guys who you have everything in common with.” I mean … Jesus Christ, if I can’t seduce artsy feminist guys, then who the hell can I seduce?

When I was younger, I definitely was like the guy is this narrative. I didn't know how to communication my ideas about relationships, intimacy, feelings, or anything of the like with the person I was with. I tended to get locked up in fears of rejection, as well as confusion over just what it was that I needed and wanted at any given time.

In more recent years, I have found myself more on Clarisse's side of the coin, doing my best to put myself out there, to aim for as much honesty, clarity, and openness as possible. Sometimes, people love this. Other times, I maybe come off as too passionate, too articulate, or simply too well put together to keep up with (gotta laugh hard at that last one).

One thing I wonder about Clarisse's comments above is how well she is responding to her reading of her date's verbal and non-verbal communication.

This can be really subtle, and sometimes you guess wrong. If you read the rest of Clarisse's post, you'll see that she had a sense something was "off." So, she was reading the situation well.

But what I wonder is whether she continued full force with her openness, directness, etc. as she was reading the guy's discomfort, or if she shifted what she was doing, even if just a little bit?

I have been in fair number of situations in recent years with women who were at the end of, or just out of long term relationships. And my general experience has been that inevitably, I have needed to step back and/or let go completely.

In fact, in one case, I wasn't even interested in a romantic relationship with the woman in question, but somehow, friendship was a bit too much at that point for her. Since I haven't seen her in a few years, I don't know if that's just how she is, or if something was specifically off between us.

And yet, this kind of dance can happen in any relationship - especially at the beginning when you're just getting to know each other.

Furthermore, I think what Clarisse experienced in terms of the "high standards" comment is something that anyone with more developed communication skills can run into. Because people sometimes feel intimidated. Unworthy. Unable to keep up.

The joke of it all is that those of us who have spent a lot of time and effort trying to be better communicators sometimes feel a similar sense of unworthiness, or unlovableness - precisely because we see how those skills can scare people, or turn them away somehow. And there's also the elevated expectations that can come - the "You know how to talk about this stuff, why can't you do it today!" kind of stuff - that sometimes occurs once someone gets to know you more.

Anyway, it's really easy to become like a cat chasing its tail about all of this. Sometimes, things just don't work out, and you'll never know why.

So, you can put some effort into trying to read and respond better to the person you are with. But at the end of the day, you have to be able to let go of the results, and not beat yourself up if things don't go the way you'd hope they would.

Is it Just a Compliment or Something More?

2011-12-13T09:09:00.000-08:00

I received the following message the other day from a woman on OKCupid.

Hi! I like your thoughtful profile. Best of luck to you on OKC!

Sounds like a thanks, but no thanks message, doesn't it? Well, here's the thing: I have never contacted her, nor even added her to my favorites list. So, what gives?

It could be that she's simply offering a compliment, but how often do people do that on online dating sites?

It could be that she's too shy to directly ask a question about what I wrote, or express any more direct interest, but then why did she add the last line?

Honestly, I'm not sitting around puzzling over this. In fact, I have barely paid attention to my profile over the past month, basically because I have been doing other things with my time.

Yet, it's these kind of ambiguous e-mails that I tend to spark my curiosity about what it is that people are doing on online dating sites.

In the particular case above, the rest of this woman's profile demonstrates a clear confidence in speaking about herself, to the point where it seems like it wouldn't be a big step to start a simple conversation with someone she might have some interest in. So, I am left to wonder if she's just offering a compliment, which was nice to receive, but left me wondering how best to respond.

Do any of you offer others online compliments about their profiles without having any other intention, such as hoping they'll start a conversation with you? What do you make of the e-mail I received above?

Again, I'm not tied up in knots over what the intention was behind the e-mail above, but I am curious.

Disappearing Dates

2011-12-10T17:58:00.000-08:00

Something I have always found challenging to work with is disappearance. When a relationship ends, the person you have been intimate with for however long often is gone from your life. Sometimes, never to return. Now, that is hard enough when you have a clear ending, when you've broken up and said something resembling a good bye. But it's even more difficult when you don't get that sense of closure, when someone just up and leaves one day, or stops returning your calls and messages.

Having had a fair amount of experience with online dating, I have also seen a lot of women come and go in a very quick fashion, vanishing without a trace. To some degree, this comes with the territory - I mean, we're all strangers in the online dating world, with nothing really that ties us together other than the internet. So, I have gotten a lot of practice with letting go. Letting go of expectations especially, but also letting go of not knowing whether I will ever meet someone, or if I do meet them, if I will ever see them again.

I've learned that a lot of women, after a first date, will say they'd like to go out with you again, regardless of their actual interest. I can imagine men do this too, but perhaps more women end up doing it for various reasons. Not wanting to hurt the guy. Not wanting to deal with a guy who gets pushy and demanding in the face of rejection. Not wanting to completely close the door on another date. Those are a few of the ideas I have seen people offer for why they lie about their level of enthusiasm for another date.

Now, in my experience, a certain percentage of the women I have gone out on dates with have e-mailed or called me afterwards and said that they actually weren't interested in seeing me again. I can say that I'd rather someone just get it over with in person, but at least they bothered to tell me. Others, though, after having said they'd love to go out again, just don't respond to follow up e-mails or calls, and simply vanish. And yet, they aren't quite gone. You sign into the online dating site and there they are, looking at other profiles.

And so it goes. Sometimes you get a clear ending and sometimes you don't. In my view, it's probably best not to put too much stock into disappearances.

Odds are it really isn't about you, unless your actions repeatedly seem to drive your dates away.

In which case, I'd suggest reading blogs like this one a lot closer.

Or go and get yourself a dog.

They're loyal, and they don't care if you blather and drool incessantly.

Just don't expect them to share your love of Albert Camus and motorcycles.

External Validation and Its Discontents

2011-12-08T18:58:00.000-08:00

One of the big lessons about relationships in general, romantic or otherwise, is recognizing that it only goes well when you are able to be you, without the need for external validation. This sounds pretty basic, and yet if you pay attention to your interactions with others for any extended period of time, you'll probably notice yourself saying or doing various things, primarily out of a hope that the other person will maintain their "good image" of you.

I enjoyed this post from twenty-something blogger Cali Bradshaw. She writes:

Anyone who tells you that they have never used an interaction with the opposite sex to validate themselves, is lying. Whether or not validation was the only motivation for talking/hooking up with someone, everyone at one point or another has felt better about their life because of attention from a guy or girl. It’s natural.

I, for one, am no stranger to looking to guys for validation. In fact, there was a point in my life where I was so caught up in needing guys, that I really lost who I was. Back when I was 18/19 I was insecure about everything – my looks, my intelligence, my personality. I didn’t know who I was, and I used guys’ level of interest to define me. If a guy wanted to take me home and make out with me, then I must be pretty, funny, and smart, right?

My experiences with this have been a little different, but still amount to the same thing. When I was younger, I often lapped up any extra attention women gave me. During college and even for a good long while afterward, if a woman showed romantic interest, I'd entertain the idea of dating her, even if I really wasn't interested. In fact, my first long term relationship was built on that model. She kept showing interest. I kept considering the idea, but also not feeling enough to go forward. And then, one day, there we were together and alone, and the attention I was receiving outweighed everything else.

In some respects, I was just a young guy without a lot of experience. Discerning the difference between a friendship connection and a romantic interest wasn't a skill I had much of yet.

However, it was also the case that I rarely had the guts to pursue women I was actually interested in, had been rejected by the few I had pursued, and so was generally swamped in feeling inadequate. All of that lead to situations where women like this ex-girlfriend would enter, display an interest, and something inside of me would stir. Today, I can see that what stirred was that inadequacy, that loneliness, and the hope attached to it that so and so might be "the one," if I just give her a chance.

In more recent years, I have dropped off that whole "the one" narrative, believing that there are multiple people in this world that could be potentially great partners, so worrying about missing out on "the one" isn't much of a concern anymore. And that's a hell of a relief. Because it allows you to let people pass out of your life who might be interested, but whom aren't really good matches for you.

I'd like to say that I'm completely over the who external validation bit, but that wouldn't be honest. It still gets me sometimes, when I'm feeling down or have gone a long time without having a relationship. The repeated flops of online dating sometimes have led me down that path of reconsidering anyone who shows some interest, even despite my best judgement. This winter, I went on two dates with a woman who I had some things in common with, but whom I'm found rather combative and self-centered.

The first date should have been enough. I felt exhausted after talking with her for a few hours, and although there were some things I liked about her, I couldn't imagine us actually being together. And yet, it was January. I was still feeling down about the events that led to my last relationship falling apart. And so, someone who, at any other time I would have just said "thank you and have a nice life" to after the first date became a person of interest.

We went on the second date. Had nice dinner at a Thai restaurant and then she invited me back to her place. Had it been warmer out, I would have suggested a walk or something outside. I wasn't ready for anything more than that. But I went anyway. And it was, like the rest of the time we had spent together, a decidedly mixed experience. She complained about a situation with her neighbor for a good half an hour, maybe even longer. We made out for awhile, but it felt awkward and forced. And we stayed up really late talking, but there were plenty of times during the conversation where it felt like we were talking across each other, or at each, but not really with each other.

Over the next week and a half, we sent a few e-mails back and forth, and I considered whether I wanted to see her again. Fortunately, I was participating in a meditation retreat at my zen center, and the jolt of just being there with my thoughts and feelings for several hours a day quickly made me realize that pursuing this connection was a mistake. I didn't like her for her, I liked her because she liked me. And that was no grounds for entering a relationship.

So, you might say I'm a lot quicker to catch on to this old pattern. And as such, tend to be much more willing to remain single, and enjoy being so, than to leap into something with someone just because she's interested.

Are You Depressed Because You Can't Find Love?

2011-12-06T08:54:00.000-08:00

Depression seems to be a hot topic on dating and relationship blogs right now. No doubt the coming winter and the lack of light in the Northern Hemisphere, where all the blogs I currently follow are from, plays a roll in this. Having had my share of minor depression, especially of the seasonal variety, I know all too well how easy it can be to get down about being alone. Even when you have an otherwise good life.

The first thing to realize is that being without a partner is not a character defect. Single folks in many societies have long been demonized for various reasons, but the fact is that there's absolutely nothing wrong with being single. In fact, I'd argue that sometimes our lives paths are such that it's absolutely right to be single for awhile.

For those of you struggling with being ok by yourself, perhaps this simple meditation practice will help.

Take a comfortable seat and close your eyes. Let your awareness move to your heart center, and feel whatever it is that is present. It might be a specific feeling, like happiness or sadness. Or maybe it's some less defined energy - a flow or a tension. Ocassionally, I seem to feel nothing at all when I do this, and that's fine as well. Whatever is there, just let it be.

After a few minutes, begin to slowly say the following phrases to yourself. You can say them silently or out loud. Either way is fine.

May I be happy.
May I be healthy.
May I love and be loved.
May I be free from suffering.

You can repeat these as often as you want. Or just say each once and then sit quietly for 5-10 minutes before moving on with your day. Sometimes, I'll do a little journaling if something specific that seems important came up during this process. Like a distinct memory that I want to reflect upon more.

One important thing about practices like this is to just do them, and not fixate on any particular outcome or goal.

I recall one particularly difficult period, following a break up, where I did this meditation amongst other practices nearly every days for months. I doubt that this practice alone allowed me to heal and move on, but it likely helped, and regardless, it gave me something tangible to do in the face of depression and sadness.

Your thoughts? What have you done when you have felt depressed about being single?

Hurt Vs. Harm in Relationships

2011-12-03T08:21:00.000-08:00

Baggage Reclaim is a really cool relationship website run out of the UK. Natalie, the author, offers frequently blog posts that are thoughtful, well written, and often challenge readers to consider ways in which they are dysfunctional about dating and relationships.

In an old post of hers I found, she considers six words that are both overused and misused in the context of relationships. I want to consider one of those words, hurt, in a little more detail. Natalie writes:

It’s important to understand our feelings and own and validate them but sometimes we get the descriptions mixed up. Eg. “I’m hurt that you didn’t take out the bins/trash.’ or I’m hurt you said X’ or ‘I’m hurt that you did Y to me’.

Meaning: Hurt is about experiencing mental pain or distress.

It’s important to distinguish between someone not doing what you want, someone not doing something in the way that you would like, and someone doing something that directly relates to causing emotional distress. Expand your range of feelings beyond hurt because it shouldn’t be the automatic descriptor for everything that other people do that you don’t like.

Acknowledging a variety of feelings appropriate to each situation combined with having levels of what actually constitutes hurt, will make for more meaningful dialogue. If the word we reach for is always ‘hurt’ we communicate to partners that every slight, no matter the size will cause us emotional distress – that’s a lot for someone to deal with.

I think this is good. I also have a slightly different take to add to it.

To me, when it comes to the whole “hurt” issue in relationships, it’s helpful to consider the difference between hurt and “harm.”

I may feel hurt that my partner doesn’t agree with me about something, for example, maybe she doesn't like my favorite writer or musician.

I also might feel hurt if she arrives 20 minutes late for a date, or if she points out that I'm not being totally truthful about something.

But none of these examples should have any long term effect. They aren't red flags, or issues that should make or break relationships.

On the other hand, if my partner lies to me about her intentions for the relationship for example, whatever I feel when I find out I might label as "hurt," but actually the behavior in question could be labeled harmful because it undermines the very trust needed for a healthy relationship.

I remember towards the end of my first long term relationship getting angry at my former partner because she wanted to always hang out with her friends when I was over. It didn't help that I really didn't like her friends, and they didn't like me, but that's another story. Anyway, I was young (age 24 I think) and reactive back then, and instead of telling her why I was upset, I chose to not call her - for nearly three weeks. I think internally somewhere I knew this was harmful to the relationship, and I also was kind of in a backwards way trying to end it. But when we did finally talk, we had an argument about politics and both talked about feeling hurt that we each didn't see the validity of the others' point.

The point in bringing up this story is that it contains the two levels. We fixated on the immediate feelings around disagreeing about some political issue - which falls in the hurt category - but were really acting out of the harm coming from my refusal to call for so long, which had been tied to her increasing refusal to spend time with me alone.

What I see is that many of us, myself included, struggle to pay attention clearly enough to understand whether something is hurtful or harmful. And unfortunately, because of that struggling, we often get hung up on the little things that are fleeting, while simultaneously missing the major red flags that actually need to be confronted, or which mean it’s time to move on.

In the relationship I brought up, it later became clear to me that both of us were making decisions to deliberately avoid spending time together alone, and face our challenges together. We also blamed each other for how we felt, and at the same time, fixated on more trivial things, claiming that a difference over something like wanting to watch TV or not was ruining our relationship. Pretty silly, but also pretty common, isn't it?

Intentions

2011-12-01T10:26:00.001-08:00

I have created a central portal for the blogs I maintain. You can read the welcome message there, and learn more about my current and future writing intentions.

Dating Industrial Complex

2011-11-29T08:16:00.000-08:00

I have long loved the blog Racialicious for it's smart, savvy cultural commentary and criticism. Awhile back, I highlighted a series of posts they did on dating and race, and today, I'd like to bring your attention to the following post over there by Andrea (AJ) Plaid. Specifically, let's consider these two paragraphs:

I’m hoping that Samhita Mukhopadhyay’s book, Outdated: Why Dating Is Ruining Your Love Life becomes a best-seller. Because she not only takes inventory of all those dating-advice books cluttering bookshelves and e-reader lists, she also takes that rarest of inventory: an anti-racist feminist inventory of the whole dating industrial complex.

Mukhopadhyay reminds the reader throughout her book that these books consistently erase those who are not cisgender and heterosexual and able-bodied and middle-class. She also says that the dating industrial complex is also rather unkind to cisgender men–all of this because they’re trafficking in narrow stereotypes based on gender binaries. And if we believe in some sort of feminism? Well, Mukhopadhyay analyzes, these books try to make that belief the reason why we’re not getting laid, let alone married. We, to paraphrase DuBois, are the 21st century problem to be solved because, so says this literature, we dare to exist–sometimes caring about being in relationships and sometimes not.

This really expands on the conversation I brought up in yesterday's post. Perhaps phrases like "dating industrial complex" give you a headache, but I have to say it's pretty spot on. So much of the dating and relationship advice out there is driven by white, heterosexual middle class norms and biases. Furthermore, it's hard not to notice how everything from life long spouses to one night stand partners have become packaged commodities that we "must have" at all times.

While part of me is grateful that options have expanded through methods like online dating, I'm unable to ignore the rest of the baggage that has come with those expanded options. This blog is littered with posts addressing some of those issues. The shopping mentality many folks have. The short attention spans. The transactional expectations. However, I'm still figuring out how best to integrate some of the issues mentioned in Andrea's post. In part because I, too, have swallowed some of the dominant stories we collectively have around dating and relationships.

In the end, plenty of people live perfectly good enough relationships without delving into any of these issues. And others are quite happy living on their own, uninterested in things like the patterns of modern dating.

I'm not really speaking to those people directly. Who I am speaking to are those of you out there who wish to experience relationships consciously. Those of you who aim to love and grow with another. Those of you who see an intimate relationship as a vehicle for living a more fully alive, authentic life.

So, if that's you, it's worth considering how some of what Andrea and Samhita are writing about might be impacting your life.

Battle of the Sexes

2011-11-28T09:05:00.001-08:00

Nearly twenty years ago, John Gray's Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus arrived in bookstores and promptly left in shopper's bags by the droves. While it by no means started what might be called the "battle of the sexes," it typifies that approach to relationships.

This is the basic narrative. Men and women are totally different. Here's how they are. And for the heterosexual folks out there, here's how you might solve the problems you are having.

Some people argue it's all about biology. Others argue it's all about culture and societal norms.

What they almost all tend to do, though, is minimize or deny individual differences.

If you want to be a conscious dater, and live a conscious, awake relationship, it's really important to steer clear of the noise. And much of the battle of the sexes is just that: noise.

I'm all for studying how cultural gender norms impact individuals. Or how biological differences might lead men and women to act differently.

However, none of that can make up for paying attention to, and deeply learning about, the person you are with.

In other words, addressing any problems you are having, whether on a first date, or ten years into a marriage, requires sticking to your current context.

Where are you coming from? Where is the other person coming from? What now?

It's easy to let external noise dictate your life. Don't go there.

Don't Doom A Potential Relationship Unnecessarily

2011-11-26T07:31:00.000-08:00

In the discussion that followed yesterday's post, Goldie asked the following questions:

how does it work after several dates if you believe in "not broadcasting your uncertainty"? What do you do to prevent it from looking to the other side as "everything was well, then out of the blue he says there's never been any connection"?

These are not easy questions to answer, but I'm all for asking difficult questions, so thank you for that.

Here are a few thoughts. I think we are always broadcasting to some degree - much of it being non-verbal in nature.

One of the reasons I'm often writing about developing your attention skills on this blog is precisely to pick up more of that non-verbal stuff. Because odds are, if you see more of what the other person is actually doing in your presence, then the less likely someone's decision to end the relationship will appear out of the blue. Still, you can miss it. I have in the past. Others have missed my checking out and backing away as well. There's always a chance you'll be totally stunned by someone you're dating one day.

As far as the not broadcasting I spoke about in the last post, it's more about speaking in a manner that crystallizes a situation.

Maybe I'm feeling unclear about what's happening. I like the person I'm with well enough, but am not sure if we are good relationship material. And so, my body language is erratic. Sometimes, I'm open, leaning in, making direct eye contact, touching her arms perhaps. Other times, I have my arms folded, am leaning back, avoiding eye contact, etc. It might also be the case that I'm not as enthusiastic as I might be during conversations or activities, that there's enough holding back that someone who is paying attention might notice it and wonder.

The thing is, some of this kind of behavior can be chalked up to not knowing each other. And if you have any natural shyness or introversion, some of it might just be how you normally operate when any relationship, romantic or otherwise, is new.

We tend to underestimate the power that labels can have upon us. Once you place a definitive label on whatever is happening, it can be difficult to change it. In other words, if I say "I don't feel an emotional connection with you" today, even if something happens to change that feeling tomorrow or a month from now, the other person will probably remember what I said today - and have a hard time fully letting it go.

It's kind of like when people get a diagnosis from a doctor. Even if the doctor comes back later and says they made a mistake, the original diagnosis is often difficult to let go of. The body starts to heal, but the mind might still be worrying about the possibility that illness X could be present long afterwards. Which makes it more difficult to heal and become healthy again.

So, I guess I'm trying to advocate for less rushing to make definite statements that doom a relationship. And to figure out ways to be more comfortable with uncertainty.

But Goldie's questions point to the other side of the coin - which is figuring out ways to maintain honesty with each other. Which is important to me as well.

If the person you are dating asks you what you think about things, one way to deal with uncertainty is to say something like "I'm not sure what's happening between us yet, but I want to spend more time with you." Some people might be ok with this kind of thing, while others might take it as a weak form of rejection.

Another way could be to say you don't want to rush into labeling what's happening. The tricky part with something like this is that it runs dangerous close to the kind of talk players and non-committers use to keep people around.

Overall, I think that any communication expressing uncertainty in the early stages of dating someone should be peppered with some comments about the person's positive traits. You might say "I don't know what's happening yet, but I really like that you are smart and kind, and want to spend more time with you."

Those are my thoughts today. What are yours?

*Image - Michelangelo's "Last Judgment"

*Update. I am now on Twitter. If you want to follow me, click the Twitter follow link on the sidebar.

Dating Uncertainty

2011-11-23T13:37:00.000-08:00

Over at Moxie's blog is a discussion of one-liners people use to either lie about their lack of interest or to maintain something casual without commitment. In the comments section, one of our regular readers here, Goldie, said the following:

Can I ask a newbie question? Is “I didn’t feel an emotional connection” the same thing as the above mentioned “I just don’t think we clicked romantically”? It’s not just me that didn’t get it – every one of my married girlfriends that I’ve shown this to had the same reaction, “WTH is this supposed to mean?” Is that another variation on “I didn’t find you attractive?”

Gosh, I just tell people “I don’t think we’ll work out as a couple” or “I don’t think we’re a good enough match”. And then I really do remain friends. Old school?

So, I highlighted this because I have often used a variant of the first like - "I didn't feel enough of a connection" - in e-mails after first dates. And I think I have also used some variant of the "didn't click romantically" line as well. Both of these phrases seem fairly clear to me, but I suppose how you write or say the rest of the response probably makes some difference.

Goldie later mentions that her question stemmed from a situation where a guy told her one of those lines and then proceeded to ask her out the next day. Then, after they saw each other again, the guy repeated the line, suggesting he wasn't interested. Sounds confusing doesn't it?

Although there could be slimy motives behind all of this, I'm guessing that this guy simply failed to handle his uncertainty well. Instead of spending the time to go on a few dates, and assess the potential, this guy chose instead to constantly broadcast his swings in interest. This is a direct path to headaches, nausea, and ultimately, remaining alone. And it's completely unnecessary.

It's actually been quite rare that I have felt a strong enough spark on a first date with someone that I didn't leave the date with some doubts or uncertainty. In our speed obsessed, instant gratification culture, these doubts and uncertainties are usually taken as direct evidence that it's time to move on. However, the way I see it, having some uncertainty is fairly normal and there are plenty of happy couples out there whose first few dates didn't break the hot and sexy bank.

The thing is that if you're dating to find someone for the long haul, it's really important to develop some patience, and to learn to withhold certain cards until you've spent more time with someone.

Perhaps Goldie's guy was always going to have mixed feelings about her. That happens. But if this was the case, he could have handled the whole thing better.

Specifically, he could have sat on the uncertainty for 2-3 dates, and then made a decision about whether to continue dating her or not.

Here's how it can be acted out.

If he decides to stop seeing her, he can use the same kind of phrase to end it, but maybe add something about not wanting to go out again. I tend to think that it's so much better to end time with someone with clarity, rather than leaving a door open with confusing messages. Which is why I think it's worth taking more time if you don't know, so you aren't sitting around weeks later thinking "What if?"

Now, if some uncertainty still remains, but Goldie's guy decides to keep dating her anyway, it's probably best to keep sitting on that uncertainty instead of broadcasting it. I say this figuring that the scales that case are tipped enough in her favor that he actually wants to see if they have a future together.

Perhaps this sounds like lying, but the reality often is that until you've spent significant time with someone, it's hard not to have some uncertainty, questions, or doubts about the relationship's long term potential. In fact, I'd argue that if you don't have a little bit of uncertainty for awhile, you're probably living in a fantasy land.

And yet, if the relationship develops, those initial uncertainties, questions, and doubts tend to go away. Because much of it had to do with not knowing how someone would react under difficult circumstances, or whether some behavior or another was an anomaly or a problematic pattern.

Note that I'm speaking here to beginnings. Which is different from having doubts and uncertainties about a relationship several months, or years into it.

What do you think? Does this ring true to you? Or do you disagree with something I said here?

Flirting

2011-11-22T12:24:00.000-08:00

Here's a post on a subject I tend to flunk unless I just let it happen naturally.

Patty Contenta knows a thing or two about flirting. In fact, she is probably the Queen of Flirting and even if you think you are an expert when it comes to men and flirting with them, you may just learn something new from Patty.

After you listen to Patty talking about flirting it makes you realize how positive and life affirming it really can be. If you think flirting is about luring and entrapment. Forget it. The way Patty deals with flirting it is just another tool a for being noticed. Nothing sleazy. Gentle flirting, as opposed to overt flaunting is a good thing.

So, I can imagine that this kind of approach of cultivating flirting skills, and then learning when to employ them, works for some folks. I like the positive, life affirming focus presented here as well.

But this just isn't what works for me. If I like someone, the demonstration of that just has to happen on it's own time. Place a limited time frame around me and I'm screwed. Which tends to mean that women who have wanted the deal sealed on a first date usually disappears from my life.

Overall, I need to get to know someone a little bit before I'm naturally touching, being playful, and/or doing light teasing.

Even if there is attraction really early on, I still tend to take my time. Although I sometimes would do well to move a bit faster, I think moving slower is a good approach for anyone looking for a long term, committed relationship. Why?

1. You'll have a better sense of your date's boundaries if you move slower.

2. Any joking or teasing you do would be less risky because you know more about your date. (A poorly timed joke or light tease on the wrong subject can sometimes kill a first or second date.)

3. With more trust developed, it's simply easier to be elevate the level of intimacy.

What I just wrote might seem logical, but probably flies in the face of much of the advice being given out there. There's so much emphasis these days on moving quickly, and learning skills and approaches designed to make you quickly and easily stand out from the crowd. Which to me just plays into the high pressured, consumer-like atmosphere of modern dating, something I'm trying - in my own little ways - to counteract.

How's flirting work for you? And what do you struggle with?

Do You Underestimate or Overestimate Yourself?

2011-11-18T10:10:00.000-08:00

Having had my share of "self-esteem" issues over the years, I can distinctly recall periods of my life when I simply didn't believe I had much to offer someone. Or that whatever I did have to offer wasn't "good enough." Dating dry spells have tended to bring this kind of thing enforce, a few times to the point where I found myself choosing to date someone who was a poor match, simply because she showed some interest. While I can honestly say that I don't sink into long periods of being controlled by these kind of thoughts today, they still do occur from time to time. However, I have learned to cut them off much quicker by simply not believing the "I'm not good enough or worthy" storyline.

On the other hand, I can recall at least as few times while in a relationship where I over-estimated my effort, and/or my contribution to the relationship upkeep. Where I thought, for example, that I truly was doing my best to listen, take care, be honest, etc, and yet after some reflection, recognized how much I was avoiding or withholding. Furthermore, in a few cases, I can recall times when I thought I was able to handle the challenges we faced as a couple, when the reality was that I didn't have the energy and/or insight to do so at that particular time.

I bring these examples from my own life up because I believe that each of us has elements of both underestimating and overestimating within us. One pattern might be dominant, but the other is often somewhere in there, lurking in the shadows. Over-confident player types sometimes underestimate their natural attractiveness, while people with a serious lack of self-esteem sometimes overestimate things like their intelligence, thinking they're smarter than most everyone else.

It's important to consider how these two poles might be playing out in your life, whether you are currently single or in a relationship. The first step being figuring out what pattern is dominant, and/or whether or not it's controlling how you relate to others.

So, what about you? Which side do you tend to fall on? Can you see the opposite extreme influencing you as well in any form?

On Demonizing Your Dates

2011-11-15T15:07:00.000-08:00

Say you're on a date with someone you either aren't attracted to, or are feeling mixed about. Perhaps the conversation is stunted, or the other person's manners are kind of off. Maybe you actually get along fairly well, but you can't see yourself being physically intimate with your date.

So, the date is starting to wind down and then it happens. He or she reaches for your hand. Or slides in for a kiss.

Sometimes, you're open to something like a kiss, but the other person's approach is sloppy, nervous, or forced.

Regardless, you experience some discomfort, and maybe the date ends on less than perfect note.

In most cases, these kinds of incidents could be chalked up to awkward moments. Either you choose to give the person another chance, or you decide to move on.

But how many of you, instead, go around telling your friends, co-workers, and others that you "went on a horrible date with this douchebag last night"? In other words, how often do you choose to slam someone's character instead of just saying "it didn't work out" and let it go?

Too often, we take things that are either miscommunications, or signs of poor compatibility and turn them into character assessments. Both women and men do it, and I'm convinced that it's a way to blame others, and keep yourself from facing any negative issues you might be bringing to the table.

Specifically, with this whole physical boundaries and touching kissing thing, it’s really easy to make mistakes because everyone has a different level of comfort. You can do you best to watch for all the signs, but the reality is still – if you’re on a first or second date – you don’t know the person. Your reading of your date isn’t based on knowing them, it’s based on a composite of past experiences. In other words, it’s basically an educated guess, which is a lot better than nothing, but still leaves plenty of room for error.

Everyone has the right to reject a date, and/or to say that something a date did doesn’t sit right with them. But it’s really unnecessary to go around assassinating the character of someone you just weren’t attracted to, or whose actions were in some manner unappealing to you, or even made you feel a bit uncomfortable.

It's seems to me that if you're going on dates, you should be ready for a bit of discomfort. Even when you meet someone you think might be the love of your life, it's often somewhat scary. Or nervous-making anyway.

Try to remember that, and save the dramatic stories for situations where it's truly warranted.

What do You Hate About Modern Dating?

2011-11-12T08:16:00.000-08:00

I'll be honest. I'm not much of a hater. Hate is entirely too strong of a word to describe what is usually either an annoyance or simple dislike. In addition, as I have gotten a bit older, I'm less charmed by the idea of bitching and moaning as a past-time. Or even as a warped mechanism of bonding with others. In other words, if I'm being critical, or offering judgments, I try to have a good reason for doing so.

With that said, here's a short list of dating dislikes and/or annoyances:

1. The shopping mentality so many people seem to have. Treating people like items in a catalog rather than as living, breathing human beings.

2. The obsession with "instant, mama said knock you out chemistry." Seriously, if your aim is to be struck by lightning, go stand on a rooftop during a rainstorm with a pitchfork in your hand.

3. All the pressure some folks place on first dates. I used to be one of those folks, trying to "act perfect" and spending the entire time obsessing about every last similarity and difference.

4. How casually some people treat sex and even emotional intimacy these days. Look, I'm all for liberation from the repressed sexual norms of the past, but there has to be honesty, care, and respect as well.

Now, let's look a little closer at what might be being these four annoyances/dislikes. The first one actually says a lot about the rest for me. I do my best to place basic human connection and compassion above most other things, feeling that we have better, more healthier communities when people care about each other. Or at least make the effort to. I also don't think dating should be approached in a transactional sense, where it's all about getting something for yourself. These are pretty core values for me, and so when something is going on that runs against them, I tend to notice.

As far as point two goes, isn't there a hell of a lot more to a strong, healthy relationship than physical attraction? And doesn't it make more sense to place "chemistry" in it's proper place as one of many factors to consider?

Honestly, when I think about number three, it's related to number one in a certain way. On the one hand, you have the salesperson approach of doing everything in your power to sell yourself as desirable to someone else. And on the other hand, there's the "on the clock" mentality that suggests your time is "too valuable to waste," and that someone best "prove some worthiness" in an hour or two, or else you're gonna move on. Whatever happened to enjoying someone's company for an evening? Or basic curiosity about another? I've been on many dates where I didn't have an interest in romance, but still learned a lot about the other person. Sometimes, I have even learned about some cool book, website, or event that I didn't know about before. I've even made a few career-related connections while on dates. You know never what can happen, and at the very least, you've learned a bit about another person's world.

The last one really ties into the rest in terms of, as I wrote above, the value I place on honesty, caring, and basic respect for each other. If you are dating, sleeping with, and pouring out pieces of your heart to multiple people - and they know nothing about that - it's kind of cruel. If any of those folks are like me, they're probably thinking they are the only one, or at the very least they are moving into more special territory. There's nothing more deflating than finding out a few months into dating someone that she/he is also having sex with, and otherwise being intimate with, others you knew nothing about.

So, that's my story. How about you? What do you dislike or find annoying about modern dating? And why?

"I Want a Naturally Unfolding Relationship"

2011-11-10T08:15:00.000-08:00

Over at And That's Why Your Single, I found the following comment by a woman named Stacy compelling:

,online dating is full of people like the OP who are looking for a relationship, but the problem is, because the relationship is the goal in itself, they try to push the person they meet into that goal, rather than seeing how things naturally play out (as more likely happens in real life). For instance, I have gone out with several guys now who act in accordance with a certain rule, date 3, they say they are not seeing someone else, date 5 ask you to take down your online dating profile, a month of dating and the “i love you” comes. They seem to be on some timeline to get married and the other person fits their criteria- but that is suffocating to the other person who eventually bails (even though s/he may have stuck around longer if there was less pressure and demands).

I have to say that I have been somewhat guilty of this kind of thinking over the years. In fact, I can think of a few women that I went on a couple of dates with and then chose to not see anymore because I didn't get a good sense that they wanted a long term, committed relationship. On the flip side, I have also bailed on a few situations where it seemed like the woman I was dating wanted marriage and children posthaste, never mind we barely knew each other yet.

However, as I sat with Stacy's comment a little longer, I started wondering about this whole "meeting and getting to know someone naturally" story. Specifically, I wonder how often something like that happened historically, and whether we simply don't have a lot of cumulative, collective experience with just meeting people, falling in love, and becoming a committed couple in a seemingly natural, on it's own pace manner.

Now, I'm talking the long view here. Centuries of collective experience at least. (Records get muddy if you go back beyond several hundred years in the past). But the idea of meeting someone, and having a relationship unfold naturally - as two free, fairly equal, consenting adults - is really pretty new, don't you think? It's only been in the past few generations that the majority of American women could act as relative equals in a partnership. The ability to easily travel beyond one's immediate locale is something that didn't exist 150 years ago, which sounds like a long time ago, but actually is a blip of time in human history. Arranged marriages were fairly common in the early days of the United States, and continue to exist amongst certain segments of the population.

So, while I sympathize with Stacy's position, and think it's wise to remove as many artificial barriers from the dating process as possible, I think some of what we're seeing in online dating culture, and dating culture in general, is an attempt to apply pieces of old formalities to new venues. Mostly, because people don't know what else to do.

It's a strange mixture of the liberated and completely not liberated when you think about it a bit closer. People who seemingly have all the freedom to choose in the world instead choose to create artificial time lines, arbitrary hoops to jump through, and long lists of "requirements" that a potential partner "must" possess to be considered worthy of consideration. A guy who isn't "strongly masculine," absurdly handsome looking, and/or isn't making a good salary is dismissed as not being "enough of a man." A woman with "strong opinions," who doesn't fit the "standards of beauty," and/or isn't "feminine enough" is dismissed as not being "womanly." For all the loosening of old gender roles that have happened in the past 50 years, there's still a hell of a lot of clinging to how it supposedly used to be. Amongst heterosexual folks, it's not difficult, for example, to find fiercely feminist women who openly desire men to "take charge in the relationship," to demonstrate chivalry, and to be the bigger financial bread winner. And it's also not terribly hard to find forward thinking men who want women that aren't going to be an intellectual challenge, and who will take care of most of the "domestic chores," sometimes to the point of coddling like a mother might.

Perhaps the practice of requiring a dowry from a bride's family has simply been spread out in terms of its content, and then applied to both parties involved. Questions like "What would you contribute to a potential partnership?" seem innocent enough, but they easily have a dark side attached to them if driven by long lists of wants and requirements that may or may not be possible.

On a practical sense, what good is any of this?

Well, if you are active in the dating world right now, here are a few ideas.

1. Expect that many people will have artificial time tables and other internal agendas that might be driving their behavior.

2. Be willing to give people more of a chance if you have a decent connection developing, but are running into conflict because of differing agendas.

3. Take some time to look at your own views, and consider that some or maybe much of what you've decided is "essential" in a partner might actually not be.

4. If you're dating someone who is really fixated on a certain set of specifics or a timetable, don't expect major changes in the short term. In other words, don't build a relationship on hopes that someone will dramatically change in the future.

Perfect Partner Narratives

2011-11-07T07:17:00.000-08:00

My mother and I frequently talk about relationships and the "wonderful" world of modern dating. Those conversations sometimes influence entire posts I write here, as you'll see when you read the following from the latest on my mother's blog:

I have been single for a long time. Most of the people who are in my life now have never know me to be with someone. People rarely ask me if I am in or out of a relationship, which seems strange to me.

I often tell people that I would rather be alone than with the wrong person. I felt good about not settling, for not being needy and for not being in a relationship for the sake of relationship.

I spent years becoming the person I wanted to attract. Have done a lot of soul searching and clearing of thoughts, beliefs and behaviors that got in the way of being a great partner. I did this because I was attracting all of the wrong men and wanted that to change. I knew that the men I was attracting were reflecting something in me and I didn’t like what I was seeing.

In the beginning this meant being with and embracing my anxiety about being alone. It meant loving who I was even though I had “issues”.

I would love to be in a relationship with someone who was my equal. I have read an embarrassing amount of books on the subject of relationship, and as a therapist I did couples counseling for years. I have become an expert on how it is done and how to be a good partner.

Over time I have come to like my own company and found it easier to be alone and not have to be accountable or compromise. I could wake up in the morning and do what I wanted until I went to sleep and there was no one to tell me other wise. Do you pick up the defiant tone in that sentence?! Now it has become routine. It is how people know me. I am single.

This morning, I have been thinking that for those of us who make great effort at developing self-awareness, and who really flush out what is it we want in an intimate relationship, there might be a different set of blocks on the road of romance. Or perhaps it's similar beliefs being attached to different things.

Consider the idea of the "perfect" partner. A lot folks, when asked about their ideal mate, have a list of particular physical characteristics, set of basic qualities like having a sense of humor or being intelligent, and perhaps something about the person's career or level of income. In addition, many people will have another list (either revealed or in the back of their mind) of similar kinds of deal-breakers. The "I don't want no liars, cheaters, drug users, players, living in mama's basement and smoking pot" type lists.

Now, while I can sympathize with some of these desires, and the struggles that arise from being too attached to those "perfection lists," my experience doesn't really fit much of that. For one, none of that kind of stuff really hooks me. I'm not one of those guys obsessed with Barbie Doll looks, or needing a woman who acts in particularly "feminine" ways, whatever that means. The women I have dated over the year have been diverse in many different ways. In other words, I haven't really had a "type" in the way that term tends to be used in dating circles.

In addition, while I also don't want to date liars, cheaters, drug users, etc., those kinds of lists are mostly baseline filters to me. If someone checks drug user on their online profile, for example, I simply move on. I'm not the kind of person to date someone for months on end who has trouble telling the truth, or who is invested in other patterns of deception. In other words, I don't let "good chemistry" or "lots of commonalities" override red flags in a relationship.

And yet, I do have a perfection narrative that sometimes trips me up. It's just that it's focused on different things. Like good attention skills. Self-awareness. Kindness and compassion. A willingness to buck social/cultural norms when your life is calling you to do so. Passionate about social and environmental justice. Those kinds of things.

Just as the person who really wants a financially "successful" partner can make the mistake of rejecting a great date who isn't quite making it, I have made the mistake of focusing too much on actual or perceived lack of compassion or self-awareness. While the substance is totally different, there are a pair of similarities here.

1. A rush to judgment usually based on a very limited sample of facts. (One or two dates.)

2. A zeroing in on a single area of a person's life, and failing to take in the whole person.

Now, I will say that someone who strongly demonstrates lack of compassion on a date probably won't be attractive to me in numerous other ways. What I'm speaking about here is more about isolated incidents that are extrapolated into totalizing views of a person. You know, like a woman who says something that sounds cruel about a co-worker, and you think "geez, she's a bitch."

Overall, when it comes to lists or images of a perfect partner, I believe people fail to use them as guidelines, instead treating them as absolute, fixed rules. In addition, a lot of us make the mistake of thinking what we want is the same as what we need. Or that what we want in our lives will always be the same.

Many of the qualities I mentioned desiring in a partner today would not have been on my list 10 years ago. I can imagine the same is true for many of you reading out there.

So, what do you think about all of this? How have "perfect partner" lists tripped you up in the past, and/or how do you keep them from tripping you up now?

Dating and Seasonal Changes

2011-11-03T08:33:00.001-07:00

I don't know about you, but as the autumn slides towards winter, and everything outside turns cold and dark, being single tugs at me more. More wanting comes up. More loneliness.

At the same time, I often experience a general rise in dating apathy about it all this time of year. When I am single at this time of year, that is. Certainly, all the fuss and ramped up holiday energy doesn't help, but there's something about the shift towards winter that almost causes me to turn away from dating, as if it's akin to swimming or some other warm weather activity.

Most of us living in industrial and post-industrial countries have become divorced from the planet, from the environment around us. So much so that we frequently miss the ways in which a change in seasons, for example, changes how we feel, think, and act. Furthermore, instead of making preemptive changes to live more in accord with the seasons, many of us simply continue to push onward in the same old ways, acting as if the frigid cold or extreme heat around us isn't also running through us. Which is it. Even if you choose to spend most of your time indoors, in heated and air conditioned spaces.

Some of you might be thinking, "What is this guy talking about?" When the holidays roll around, I want to date all the time. Being single around the holidays is the worst!" Well, I hear you. Others might be thinking, "I'm too busy with family and friends during the holidays to care at all about dating." To which I would say, sure, I get that too.

It's not so much the particular pattern as it is the fact that there is a definite shift that occurs.

The first thing to ask yourself is whether you recognize a shift during this time of year around dating and romance. I would actually say that this is true regardless of whether you are in a relationship or not. Most of us have internal and external shifts around the holidays, but how many of us actually recognize those shifts, instead of simply reacting until we're frustrated, depressed, or exhausted?

Once you develop an awareness of what your habitual patterns and shifts are around the holidays, you can move to the next level - which is assessing whether what you do and how you think is healthy or not.

In my own life, I have learned that some of the dating apathy that seems to always arise at this time of year is really just a call to turn inward, to be more reflective about my life. This doesn't seem to matter whether I'm single or with someone - the cold, darkness, and snow calls me to turn inward.

I also know that another piece of this apathy is tied to believing the sad sack stories that sometimes run in my head about not being "good enough," or "worthy" of a relationship. The tricky thing about turning inward is that you see it all - the positive thoughts and emotions, and the negative. And because it's cold outside, and I tend to be stuck in a tiny apartment by myself more often on long winter days and nights, the negative likes to come and visit you might say.

Perhaps you have the opposite response. Maybe you are one of those people who attend every holiday gathering, and are involved in all sorts of activities during this time of year. Do you find yourself looking for love at all those gatherings? Are you filling your schedule in part to avoid loneliness?

There's nothing wrong with being more busy during holidays. I'm just suggesting that you consider whether your love life, or lack there of, is driving how your living in an unhealthy manner. Since I'm more the contemplative type during this time of year, I have to watch that I don't isolate myself, and essentially fall into seasonal depression. In fact, for someone like me, it's actually helpful to sometimes push myself to go on a date or two during this time of year, just to break up the pattern. For someone who is excessively active and constantly on the prowl for love during the holidays, it might be smart to deliberately schedule some alone time, and spend that alone time doing something other than thinking about dating and relationships.

What do you all think? Does any of this resonate with you?

*Photo is of a classic Minnesota blizzard from last December.

Talking about Past Relationships

2011-10-30T12:30:00.000-07:00

Among several other topics discussed in this thread over at the Love Shack dating forum is the issue of talking about past relationships with someone you are dating. This is an area of relationships that has few clear "rules," and has the potential to either seriously harm or seriously benefit the current situation, depending upon how things are handled.

Couples that are able to speak about their past primarily in terms of lessons learned or issues still being worked on tend to be strengthened. If you had a string of past relationships where too many things were left unspoken, speaking about that with your current partner might help lead to more honesty and openness. If you have a history of fearing your partner will vanish one day, sharing that at the right time in your current relationship might help your partner understand you better, and perhaps be able to support you to let go of some of that fear.

Obviously, the amount of this kind of information and the level of detail should depend upon the strength of your connection with each other. If you've gone on a lot of first dates like I have, you have probably experienced one or more of those first dates from hell, where a relative stranger goes on and on about their various exes, offering sometimes excruciating insights about both their former partners and also themselves. Needless to say, this kind of disclosure isn't a good idea.

Beyond a situation like that, though, I think there are an awful lot of shades of gray to be had. How to handle situations that you might feel embarrassed or ashamed about for example? Or what about the number of sexual partners you've had in the past?

This comment from a woman on the forum struck me as interesting.

He and I did not feel ANY need to discuss our prior sexual relationships, and we never have. There was no reason that was pertinent to our own relationship. There was no inherent threat there. Neither one of us really cared about it. I started to "confess" some stuff to him once that I though he could take issue with. He listened to me for a few moments and then said something like, "you know what? That really doesn't matter to me. For some reason, you are such a clean slate for me." We didn't talk about it again. I doubt we ever will.

We did, however, talk about our former marriages. We were both divorced once. There were things from each one of our prior marriages that we learned, mistakes we'd made and that we each were accountable for, as well as behavior in our former spouses that we knew we didn't want to experience again. So, talking about some of that really did have pertinence to our own relationship.

One of the things that I was struck by is that although I tend to be a person who values honesty and putting as much as possible on the table with a partner, something about the approach this couple took made sense. Certainly, the focus on lessons learned fit into how I approach things. But even the lack of a need to confess about the past, sensing that perhaps that one night stand you had at 25 which didn't result in pregnancy or getting an STD really isn't that relevant.

I have noticed in recent years that I tend to focus on patterns that have occurred in my past relationships. Some of which stretch across much of my dating history. Speaking about mistakes is usually done in that context, again focused either on lessons learned, or with more intimate, long term partners, on issues where I probably still need to grow. Given this kind of approach, most of the short term relationships and connections either become minor footnotes - like they should be - or simply never come up.

Now, one thing I will say is that I still sometimes struggle to balance the need to share with the need for good timing, and a strong enough connection with someone for that sharing. Occasionally, I have found myself blurting something out about my past which fit the context of the conversation, but that, when I stopped and thought about it, really wasn't the best decision. So, if you are single or have the opportunity to reflect on what you want to share with a current or potential partner, it's a good idea to think about what's important and what isn't, as well as how deep into details you want to go, given the level of connection.

So, those are a few thoughts about sharing past relationships. What are your thoughts and ideas?

Dating Multilple People at the Same Time: Some Notes

2011-10-26T09:18:00.000-07:00

After engaging in several discussions, both online and off, I have come to a more nuanced position on the whole "dating multiple people at the same time" issue. Actually, it would be more accurate to say that what I have been doing in my own life became clearer, and I realized I was presenting too simplistic of a picture in comments I was making on other blogs.

So, here's what I think: you need a different approach based upon how strongly you are interested in someone you're dating.

This may seem obvious to readers, but I'm realizing that many folks seem to employ the same strategy regardless of what's happening. If they're scared of falling in love too quickly and getting "burned," they always keep their options open. Others, who maybe are more like me, tend to pull most or all of their energy into a single person, even if they feel lukewarm about the dates with that person.

So, what I want to advocate for is inline with what I have already spoken a lot about on this blog: learning to pay closer attention, and make decisions based on what you are actually experiencing.

Here are a few examples from my own dating life to help illustrate. I went on 4 dates with a woman last winter I would call "nice" and "interesting." The time we spent together was comfortable, and we seemed to get along fairly well. But other things were lacking. Four dates and almost zero touching. Our conversations were more intellectual and less heart-based. And every time a date would end, it wasn't really clear if we'd even see each other again. Overall, I really wasn’t sure what to think. And I don’t think she was either. You could say the whole thing was "lukewarm."

In situations where you feel lukewarm like this, it makes sense to keep the door open for awhile. While I didn’t go on dates with anyone else during that month I was dating the woman in the story above, if someone interesting had shown up, I probably would have considered doing so. And certainly, if I had been talking to someone else during that time already, I would have continued to do so.

On the other hand, there was the woman I dated for about 7 weeks this spring. From the beginning, I really liked her who approach to relationships. We actually talked about what we wanted in detail on our first date, and continued to do so throughout the whole time we spent together. She really had her shit together, and had reflected a lot on what it meant to be a healthy person partnering with another healthy person. We also had fun together, and got along well. Although I wasn't sure about the level of attraction between us, I definitely felt more than lukewarm about her. So, I decided to hide my online profiles and focus on dating her following the third date.

Even though, in the end, neither of us felt there was enough between us to build a long term relationship on, it was totally worth it to have focused on being with her alone and not worrying about "other possibilities." I really got to know her as a person, as opposed to solely "a potential partner," something I think happens frequently when people are juggling multiple options for weeks and months on end. You're too busy looking for what you want or don't want, and end up missing the person in front of you.

Overall, if you feel a good connection with someone, and start to wonder if they might be a good long term partner, it just makes sense to me to put your focus on being with them, fully and completely. How else can you really get to know someone?

Some people argue that most of the time, things don't work out. Which is true. Most of the time, things don't work out.

However, I disagree with the idea that you better "always keep your options open" because things might not work out. It just feels like a set up for failure. A constant hedging of bets.

And if you are someone who is worried about falling in love too soon, and getting "burned" after a few months, you might want to take a look at yourself. Do you have healthy personal boundaries? Are you in love with the idea or feeling of being in love? Are you afraid of being lonely?

You know, if you need to keep the option door open because that’s how you can keep yourself from overly focusing and attaching to someone too early, then I guess that’s what you need to do. But it seems to me wiser to learn how to date someone, and at the same time, not get too hooked early on by good feelings. In other words, I’m saying develop the inner skills to slow down and create appropriate boundaries, instead of constantly jockeying options to keep from getting sucked in prematurely.

The more you take responsibility for your decisions and emotional responses, the more likely you'll attract someone else who does the same.

What do you think about all of this?

Marriage and Fidelity: Debunking the Mythological Past

2011-10-24T17:11:00.000-07:00

The same guy I've been debating from the last two posts raised the following question in his current response to me:

"If people in the past never married for love but right now people are currently marrying for love, how would you explain the escalating divorce and infidelity rates?"

First off, I never said people "never married for love" in the past, but that's how this guy read me apparently. Moving on, let's consider the second half of the question a little more closely, because I do think a lot of people believe that there's much more cheating going on today than in the past. And there is no small amount of "alarm" about divorce rates.

Simply put: a lot of folks are pretty ignorant about history. Just look at the records of the more powerful from the past. In terms of the U.S, many of our early Presidents and/or Congressional leaders cheated on their wives, some multiple times. And infidelity amongst men was socially sanctioned and even encouraged in some circles. Furthermore, although it was potentially much more dangerous for women to cheat, some still did, even those in prominent places.

Here are some rather dramatic examples that resulted in major political scandals:

In 1796, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton (the guy currently pictured on the $10 bill) had an affair with Maria Reynolds while both were married to other people.

There has been ongoing revelations about President Thomas Jefferson's parentage of multiple children with his slave Sally Hemmings.

In 1831, Robert Potter, a Congressman from North Carolina, resigned from Congress after castrating two men he believed were having an affair with his wife.

During the same year, the husband of Margaret "Peggy" O'Neale, later Margaret O'Neill Eaton, was alleged to have been driven to suicide because of her affair with Andrew Jackson's Secretary of War, John Henry Eaton.

In 1859, Daniel Sickles (D-NY) shot and killed the district attorney of the District of Columbia[325] Philip Barton Key II, son of Francis Scott Key, whom Sickles had discovered was having an affair with Sickles's young wife, Teresa.

An additional note about this case was that Sickles was tried and acquitted in the first use of the temporary insanity plea.

Well known early 20th Century President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had a long standing affair with his wife Eleanor's secretary Lucy Mercer, which led to Eleanor offering a divorce, and Lucy (a Catholic) declining to marry FDR.

Those are just a few of the more salacious examples from the record. There are plenty of "garden variety" affairs to be found as well, if people just stop and read their history a little closer.

None of this, of course, suggests that no one married for love, or stayed committed for a lifetime. Many couples did, but my point is that the levels of infidelity have not skyrocketed in the ways right wing social conservatives are fond of suggesting.

As for the rising divorce rates, again, consider the fact that less than two generations ago, women were rarely in a financial or even legal position to file for divorce. In fact, throughout the 19th century, if a woman wanted to file for divorce, she would loose both the custody of her children and rights to any property she had. Furthermore, depending on one’s religious affiliation, divorce was, regardless of gender, not really a possibility. Thus, many people stayed married out a sense of duty to their religious beliefs.

Although some of this information might puncture holes in a nostalgia for a "romance like those of the good ole days," I actually find it oddly comforting, because it shows that relationships have always had their complications. The problems of today might be different than those of yesterday, but I don't think we've gone on a terribly slide downward when it comes to love and commitment.

*Photo: FDR with girlfriend Lucy Mercer and cousin-wife Eleanor, in 1929. (Franklin D. Roosevelt Library)

More On the Nuclear Family with Children Narrative

2011-10-23T09:33:00.001-07:00

Since the conversation continues from yesterday, here is the latest comment from Stephen and my response back.

Stephen wrote:

as regards to soul-mate. I said it depends on your perception of soul mate. A woman who views George Clooney as a soul mate will eventually wound up believing she doesn’t have a soul mate. We all know Clooney is neither willing to settle down nor permanently remain with a particular lady. This has nothing to do with Experience. Nathan take a look around you and tell me you haven’t seen ugly people, uneducated people, disabled people, even poor people settling down.
Nathan, lets rewind to centuries past. folks seldom traveled more than 500 miles from their birthplace, yet they still managed to find their soul mates and spend the rest of their lives. Fast forward to Today, we travel the world easily and often live far from our place of birth. Yet we rapidly fail to do what our ancestors did successfully.

In response to the list of questions I posed yesterday about community involvement, adoption, and other issues, he further wrote:

Everything you mentioned are not exclusively to be carried out by single childless individuals. Angelina Jolie had 3 biological children yet adopted another 3 from 3rd world countries. Talking about people who can’t conceive is off point because i directed my comment to people capable of conceiving. Most famous men (like steve jobs & bill gates) who had impacted the world are family men. Many volunteers are family people. Most farmers are family men. Many small scale entrepreneurs are family men. Many Ecologians are family men. Many soldiers are family men. Single childless people simply chose to remain such, not because they are contributing more than family people in building communities. Your logic is flawed.

Here's my response in full. One thing I realized after reading Stephen's points was that the way I wrote made it sound like was placing single folks or people without children above couples with children. Which wasn't my intent.

You assume that I meant to exclude “family men” from all those questions I mentioned, when the real point was that it takes diversity to make a thriving community. Sure, people raising children are part of the equation – I’d never said they weren’t. Nor did I want to suggest that single people are necessarily “more involved” in their communities than couples with children. I’m not interested in creating a moral hierarchy, whereas you seem to be doing just that, shaming people who choose to not have children.

Your notion of “settling down” seems to require having children. I simply disagree with that view. It can include or not include having children. People can have completely full lives in long term partnership or marriage without having and/or being the primary care giver of children. In fact, some of these people might be able to help multiple other couples with their children because they aren’t focused on “their own kids.”

Your view of the past is romanticized. Many people were forced into marriages with someone that wasn’t remotely their “soul mate.” Women were considered the legal property of their husbands for centuries, and it’s only been in the past 60-70 years that most women had any real mobility to choose their partners. There was also the commonplace early deaths of mothers in childbirth or from diseases, and fathers in warfare, awful factory and farming accidents, and diseases, which completely blows the idea of being with one’s soul mate for decades on end. Women who lost their husbands sometimes ended up with brother-in-laws or male cousins of their husband. Men who lost their wives often remarried not out of love, but because they needed someone to care for their children. And if you think infidelity is a modern phenomenon, you’re sorely mistaken.

When I speak of the world having 7 billion people, and that it’s ok for some to choose to not have children, I’m speaking from a place where we aren’t – collectively – in need of having most everyone having children to maintain our population. I remember having a long discussion with two of my former ESL students, women from Ethiopia who had large families. They couldn’t believe it when I said I wasn't 100% sure I'd have children. But then we started considering the circumstances they came from. Given the conditions in Ethiopia, it’s not uncommon to lose at least a few children to malnutrition, malaria, and other issues that just aren’t common here in the U.S. Furthermore, if you were a rural family, trying to run a farm, you needed enough children to keep things going. Having a big family meant you had a better chance to maintain a livelihood. Again, something that just isn’t the case here in the U.S. for the most part. Even though I still think it would be just fine for someone living in a country like Ethiopia to choose to not have children, the encouragement to have children makes more sense there than here.

As for those “family men” you mention who have greatly impacted the world, you might want to consider how their decisions impacted the lives of their children and spouses. Martin Luther King Jr. was an amazing leader who gave our nation and the world many gifts, and helped liberate a hell of a lot of people, but he wasn’t that great of a husband, and his parenting was “uneven” as well. Steve Jobs had a child he essentially disowned for years. And there are plenty of other examples amongst powerful “family men.” (Interesting that you don’t mention women at all in that list of yours).

*Image of King Henry VIII's family. A quite "stable" royal model, don't you think? :)

Relationship Narratives: Loosening the Chains of the Nuclear Family

2011-10-22T14:24:00.000-07:00

I've been in a back and forth with a 24 year old guy on Evan Marc Katz's blog whose ideas I find quite "conservative." Here's the comment that set me off.

I think a lot of us in this generation are often self centered and care so much about our happiness rather than look at the big picture ahead. If our parents had our mindset we wouldn’t be in this world to exhibit our selfish and hedonistic proclivities. It perplexes me that a lot of intelligent and innovative folks do not see the need to pass on their genetic code and chose to die with it.

I was in agreement to some degree with his first few sentences, but that last sentence is just ridiculous. I responded with this:

There are 7 billion people on this planet already. I don’t think everyone needs to be making more babies, especially if they aren’t inclined to parenthood in the first place. It’s insulting to suggest that those who choose to not have children are selfish and hedonistic. The two issues are completely separate. And frankly, there are plenty of selfish and hedonistic parents in this world.

And he comes back with the following:

What matters to us isn’t the 7 billion people around us. What matters is those we could actually feel and call our own.
It seems to me you want to enjoy the luxury of having a love life while inadvertently depriving someone else of that. Imagine if some else had deprived you- oh!!.. we wouldn’t even be having this discourse.

To which I responded with this little diatribe:

You’re trying to guilt and shame me, buddy. And I’m not going there. Just because we can reproduce does not mean we must reproduce. I am not bound by some divine contract to give birth to a child solely because I was born. Cultural and/or religious narratives that say we must have children to be consider worthy as adults are just narratives to me – stories people pressure and oppress each other with.

If I choose to have children, it will be because I love and am committed to someone, and we both want to bring a child in this world.

I find many of your comments sexist, to be blunt. You seem totally ok blasting women who choose to focus on aspects of life other than family, but I don’t get the sense that you hold men to similar standards. Furthermore, you’re speaking in a manner of such absolute certainty that is clearly not backed up by much experience, which many here have picked up upon, and are quite irritated with. How could you possibly know that each one of us has a “soul mate” out there? Or even more so, how could you possibly know that those who don’t find a good match simply didn’t believe in soul mates and refused to “accept” the right person?

Life is a hell of a lot more complicated than your narrative suggests it is. What about adopted children? What about people who can’t conceive children? If everyone is so focused on building nuclear families, who will build our communities, volunteer, build the small businesses that drive our local economies, grow the food we eat? Who will support the elders who have lost their children, or who have children that can’t/won’t help take care of them? Who will tend to the environment around us all? Who will do all the things that are not necessarily tied to nuclear family life, but ARE necessary to having strong communities?

There are a few ways to look at this. Stephen, the author of the comments I am responding to, is heavily wedded to a particular form of the nuclear family narrative, where focusing on having and raising children is more important that most everything else in life. Certainly, he's still fairly young, but plenty of older folks are devoted to this same story. Which is totally ok - for them. When it actually works for them.

But - and this is one place where I break from the mainstream - I actually don't believe that the majority of us really want that kind of focus. Many of us say we do, but that's because the nuclear family with mother, father, 2.5 kids, and a house story has been pressed upon us to the point where it's hard to see another way.

How many of you have never pictured yourself as a parent?

How many of you have built well-rounded lives filled with love and joy, in a form other than the nuclear family?

How many of you with children either have, or would love to have, stronger connections with your extended family? Perhaps strong enough to regularly share parenting "duties" with aunts and uncles, cousins, and grandparents?

How many of you have close, intimate friends who are - in your mind - part of your family?

How many of you are - like I am - passionately drawn to serving in your community, to giving your time and energy to larger social causes?

I think we all could benefit from asking more questions about why it is we think what we think about relationships, and how those narratives might be limiting our lives.

Kindness and Modern Dating

2011-10-20T09:09:00.000-07:00

One thing that seems fairly lacking amongst us modern daters is basic kindness towards each other. A single mistake can be used to dismiss you from consideration. A small flaw or weakness can easily become a sign that you are, probably, an unworthy screw up. Many of us are addicted to a certain kind of perfection, and won't "settle" for anyone who seems to fall short.

At the same time, you might also not be willing to accept yourself as you are. It may be you who is rejecting you first, thinking your not good enough for whomever it is you are writing to online, or meeting at some event or in some public place.

Both of these issues are tied together by a thread of unkindness. We don't want to fully embrace who we are, and so we walk around feeling unworthy. And/or we don't want to fully embrace who someone else is that we're considering dating, so we choose to dismiss them for something that is most likely insignificant in the long run.

I'm kind of convinced that people struggle with kindness because they've been burned a lot. Or they worry that they'll become doormats, and let someone enter their lives and do whatever they please.

The thing is, that's not what kindness is about. However, I do think people that are kind tend to also have their guard down more, and are more open to what life is bringing them.

Here is a small list of expressions of kindness applied to online dating situations.

1. Writing someone back who clearly took the time to read your profile and ask you questions. Even writing back to say "Thank you. I don't think we'd be a good match. Best of luck to you."

2. Coming up with a meeting place for the first date that is inexpensive, comfortable, and centrally located for both people.

3. Engaging friendly conversation with someone. Even if you decide you're not interested in seeing the person again, you're not mentally preparing to leave 5 minutes into the date.

4. Hold the door open. Clear the table if your at a self-service kind of place.

5. Really listen to what the other person is saying.

6. Share about yourself in a respectful manner, which means straddling the line between being open and dumping your "stuff" on the other.

7. Pay attention so that you actually can make a decision about someone based on something real, instead of something imagined or a knee-jerk reaction.

Those are a few examples from my own experience. How about you? What would you add to the list? What do you think about kindness and modern dating in general?

The 80-20 Rule

2011-10-17T09:21:00.001-07:00

One thing I have noticed about myself over the years is that when I am single, and everything else feels at a lull in my life, I tend to start fixating on wanting a partner. Partly, this is just a response to the loneliness that can come up, as well as the myriad of dreams about what you might be doing if you were with someone. Another piece of it, though, is a basic failure to appreciate my life as it is. Being alive, healthy, with my basic needs mostly met isn't enough. Having a small group of quality friends isn't enough. Nor a supportive family. Nor any of the other things I'm simply taking for granted.

As I read other blogs and dating forums, and I wrote posts for this blog, I keep going back to the idea that being at ease with being single is the best way to enter into a long term, healthy partnership. And that those who are severely uneasy about being single tend to struggle in relationships, and use dating in part, as an attempt to bring ease into their lives through connection with another person. A strategy that nearly always fails over the long term.

When I think about all the comments people leave on dating blogs saying things like "these people I go on dates with don't appreciate me." Or "they're just into my body or my money or my political ideas or whatever." When I see these kinds of comments, I wonder about the people saying them. Do they deeply appreciate their lives as they currently are? Do they feel a love and passion for what is already present in their lives? And can others see that love and passion?

I'm not a believer that our thoughts alone make our lives. That's way too simplistic in my view. However, I do believe that how we think about our selves does have an impact. Sometimes a strong one, and sometimes much more subtly. If internally, you feel some desperation to find a partner, and some loathing of being single, others will pick up on that. If you don't feel passionate about different aspects of your life, that will be fairly obvious to others.

In other words, we need to place a lot more focus on how we are ourselves, and much less focus on what we want in a partner.

I like to think of it as a 80% - 20% rule.

80% of the energy I expend on dating is about honing my attention and listening skills, refining the list of what's important to me, practicing being open to a new relationship entering into my life, and reflecting upon what I might have learned from recent dates I have gone on that "didn't pan out." It also may simply include time doing things to take care of myself.

The remaining 20% of the time involves doing things like looking at online profiles, making lists of wants and don't wants in a partner, going on dates, and other such outward looking things.

What I usually see people doing is the opposite ratio. 80% of the time is spent focusing on the dating pool, including copious amounts of time bitching about other people's flaws, mistakes, and offenses.

There's more I could say about this, but I'd like to offer this flipped ratio as something for you all to consider. If you like this idea, how might you change what you're doing now to get more in line with it? If you dislike what I've said, how have you been successful using a mostly "other focused" approach? Or have you not been successful using that kind of approach?

Your Mind Wants Answers

2011-10-14T17:15:00.000-07:00

So, you doing the whole online dating thing. You've been writing some guy and he seems interested. Maybe you've talked on the phone, and even gone on a first date. It all appears to be going in the right direction. And then - poof! He's gone. What happened?

Unless someone tells you directly why they've chosen to stop contacting you, the answer to that question is always another question: "who knows?" In fact, even if someone tells you something directly, it might not be the truth. Or the full truth anyway.

Being a student of meditation, I have become familiar with the way the human mind likes to work. And one thing it desires whenever facing something unpleasant is resolution. Usually in the form of an answer. Or set of answers.

Now, there's nothing wrong with thinking that someone disappeared because "he/she wasn't interested." Or that "he/she must have met someone else." Either of those answers might very well be true. And no matter what you do, chances are that you're brain will produce that kind of story to help sooth your feelings.

The problem, in my view, comes when you 100% believe in the story. A story that, if not told to you directly from the other person, you can't 100% prove is correct.

Further trouble comes when you take this same story and begin applying it to everyone who does something similar.

I can hear a few readers shouting "But that's just common sense, using the past to predict the present." To which I'd like to say "Yes, but also remember that everyone is different as well."

Here's the thing. If you have decided that you want to move on from someone, then thinking something like "he/she isn't interested" is useful. It might be the very thing to help you detach from any emotional connection that may have developed.

However, there's a big difference between using an answer like that to help you move on, and allowing an answer like that to dictate how you're going to respond to someone who you're still interested in.

Letting assumptions control your behavior often leads to missed opportunities and shoddy connections.

If I had a dollar for every time I heard or read a woman describe a dating situation where a guy didn't write or call her back within a few days, and she decided "he wasn't interested," I'd be rich. Filthy rich. This kind of narrative seems less common amongst men, but I have to say that I was guilty of writing off at least a few women in the past as "not interested" for not responding quick enough.

There's another nuance to all of this worth mentioning. Like many things in life, perceived trends or patterns of experience can help to significantly reduce the amount of time involved in determining a course of action. Certainly, if you're experience has been that most people who don't contact you after X number of days aren't going to contact you - or aren't going to display a serious level of interest - then it makes sense to believe that the same might be true in the current place. I often make decisions based on trends or patterns, and so this post isn't about dismissing that.

The difference though, is that when I'm choosing to act based on a trend or pattern, I do my best to remember that I'm choosing. And that there's always a chance that the choice might be wrong. That recognition that the trend or pattern might not be true in the current situation allows me, when I experience it, to remain open to something different happening. That maybe the person on the other end is unexpectedly busy, or is waiting to see what happens on another date, or simply doesn't respond as quickly as everyone else.

It's vitally important to realize that it's in your mind's nature to want answers. If there's a lack of a clear answer, it will make something up. Learning to hang without an answer when there isn't one, or only a partial one, is a major dating and relationship skill. One I'm still trying to master.

How about you?

A Dating Suggestion to the Deeply Frustrated

2011-10-11T07:19:00.000-07:00

So, you've done the work on yourself to be ready and open for a relationship. You've tried every option and avenue you can think of. You been on countless dates with countless people and still, you're sitting here single.

May I suggest something? It's time to give up.

Specifically, give up the attachment you have to finding and having a committed partner in your life.

The way I see it, the effort of going on dates, trying out new ways to meet people, and opening space for dating and a potential new partner are all necessary ingredients. However, at the same time, none of that will necessarily lead you to getting that person you want into your life. And to push the idea above further, there's a point where focus on finding a partner slides into obsession.

In other words, sometimes more effort and mental energy are not at all what's needed - letting go completely is is what's needed. Because when you actually finally do that, you realize that it's all an ebb and flow and that letting go of your desire for relationship doesn't have to be some depressing finality, but that it's basically about admitting that you don't know. Don't know if doing anything else is needed. Or if it's going to happen or not eventually.

How can you find joy and satisfaction now, as you are? Not only is this attractive to other healthy, intelligent, creative people, but it's also an attractive way to live, period. But in my experience, it seems to require being ok with not knowing a lot. With learning to balance intelligent effort with some form of faith that it will all work out in the end.

Another Form of Fear of Committment?

2011-10-09T17:13:00.000-07:00

I had a conversation with my mother this afternoon about modern dating. One of the things she said was that it seems like "dating has gotten so difficult. People think that even having a conversation with someone in the grocery store means committing to something." As I listened, I thought, "yeah, that makes sense. It's the oppose pole to those who date piles of people at the same time, and won't "settle" - ever - because they think they might miss out or loose their "freedom to choose."

When I hear my mother's comments, at first I wondered if that kind of thing was more common amongst Boomer generation daters, but then I started thinking about my own experiences, and realized it probably isn't unique to any one generation.

But then there's this issue about whether dating has "gotten more difficult" in general, something that kept pushing the conversation we were having. I started thinking about the "list syndrome" - how so many of us now carry with us and often broadcast a list of desired traits, skills, and accomplishments we want our future partners to have. And then there's the extreme consumerist individualism that has become the norm, conditioning us to believe we can do everything on our own, don't need communities, extended families, even partners really. So much has become about always "having choices," an endless supply of choices, assuming that this is the definition of freedom. Which I'd argue is really missing the mark.

My mother commented about how when she did personal ads in the local newspapers back in the late 80s, it was easy to get dozens of responses. And she spoke of a similar situation when doing online dating back in it's early days. I said "doesn't that have a lot to do with the newness factor, the novelty of meeting people that came when those avenues had just started to open up?" She agreed to some degree, but stuck to the thought that it's still more difficult now for some reason.

Maybe it is. But my mind keeps circling back to commitment, or the struggle to make one, and how that plays a major role in this whole conversation.

What do you think about all of this?

Women Asking Men Out: Some Analysis of Gender Norms

2011-10-06T17:05:00.000-07:00

During a conversation over at the blog And that's why you're single,
I was involved in a short discussion about women asking men out on dates. The lone woman in the conversation argued that while men might say "yes" to a woman's invitation to go on a date, they probably weren't terribly interested in her beforehand, and/or aren't going to be as interested in dating her as if they had done the asking. She uses this view to justify to herself not asking men out, which she's certainly entitled to do. (And if she's having luck with her current approach, who cares, right?) I guess I don't know if she's having luck finding quality potential partners or not, but another male commenter suggested that she might be missing out on a certain percentage of men who might not, for various reasons, directly ask her out. She felt that number was tiny, but I disagreed. Here's my response:

You know, I understand that adhering to the old gender norms where men do the asking, and women accept is in some ways a practical strategy. I think women who stick totally to that model are missing out on a swath of men. And it’s not just men who are shy and not assertive. It’s actually including any men who haven’t found you yet (if online), or who don’t know you (if in person), or who simply aren’t the type to ask out strangers or relative strangers.

When it comes to online dating, I really think plenty of women are – through their lack of being proactive – missing opportunities. Vox (the female commenter I spoke of above) points out that men might save her profile and then not go back. Because there’s hundreds of others out there. I know that there have been times when I have saved profiles of women I thought were really interesting, and then didn’t go back for weeks afterwards. Sometimes, it was because I was already going on dates, and didn’t have any more time. Other times, I was simply too busy. And still other times, I just plain forgot.

Another issue here is the issue of who it is you’re attracting. Perhaps you have a full inbox of e-mails from guys, but what if it’s full of guys who either are totally not what you want, or who are too much like your exs? Sometimes, you have to break the norms in order to also break patterns like attracting the “wrong people” – even if you desire to uphold the norms in general.

Besides those comments, I also believe there are some unquestioned assumptions about heterosexual men as a group that underlie Vox's view (which is shared by many other heterosexual women). First off, there is an assumption that men only display attraction directly, and that if they don't ramp things up in an assertive way, they aren't interested. I flat out disagree with this totalizing view, and believe that even some confident, mostly mainstream guys display a mixture of approaches to demonstrating interest in women. To me, this men are always direct and obvious is a dressed up version of the "men are simple creatures" narrative.

The second issue I want to point out is more complicated. I do think there are some men who feel a need to be dominant and in control of the dating process, and who would react negatively towards women who choose to initiate dates. I can see how men like this might go on a date with said woman because it's something to do, and might even be interested in her on some level, but ultimately feel threatened by her assertiveness.

However, I sometimes think a lot of women fail to recognize that men haven't stayed, as a whole group, in the past. That all the efforts of the women's liberation movement, of the various feminisms, and even to some degree elements of the more recent men's movement have had a marked impact on a large number of younger men (amongst the under 50 crowd) in American society. That there are a hell of a lot more men out there today whose actions and beliefs are a blend of "masculine" and "feminine" to use those sort of sloppy terms. That there are plenty of men who are defining relationships more along lines of an equal partnership, and who view dating as something mostly other than from a "traditional" courtship model. And this post is only focusing on heterosexual men. If you include gay men, bisexual men, and men who identify as queer, that would add even more layers upon this discussion.

In fact, I'd argue that one of the things undergoing revision in society is a strict adherence to a single definition of sexuality. That who we are as sexual beings, regardless of whom we choose to ultimately be partners with, frequently doesn't fit into a tiny set of boxes. People like Alfred Kinsey were shunned for talking about this kind of stuff decades ago, and there are still plenty of naysayers running around saying things like sexuality is only about procreation, or only happens in X number of forms, and whatnot - but more and more people are choosing to see the true diversity out there, and do what they can to support and even celebrate that.

Going back to the original topic, I think men who don't "fit" the old norms have a role to play also. We need to be more vocal about how we are approaching dating, including writing and responding to these kinds of posts on dating and relationship websites. We need to share our experiences, and even to some extent explain our reasons for choosing to not go along with the old ways. And for some of us, there's a strong need to develop confidence and an ability to let go of criticism and commentary that we "aren't good enough" or "aren't man enough." And finally, we need to figure out a way to balance critical commentary about the oppressive elements of gender norms with a respectful attitude towards those who genuinely feel ok following those norms themselves.

Whew! All that from a few comments about people asking each other out dates. That's enough from me. What are your thoughts?

Deception

2011-10-05T14:13:00.000-07:00

"Deception has many qualities, and among them, elaborate tales certainly is a hallmark feature. So, too, is a sense of being asleep to the truth of a situation, whether you just don’t know any better, or you deliberately ignore everything occurring around you."

I wrote those words a little over a year ago as part of an article for a webzine I have a regular column at. Although the article is as much about art as it is about relationships, when I stumbled upon it again this afternoon, I felt it would of interest to readers here.

* Image of Arthur Davies, “Sleep Lies Perfect in Them,” 1908.

Obsessing About Strangers

2011-10-04T07:55:00.000-07:00

Claire recently got in touch with me because she was literally freaking out about a guy that had asked for her number and hadn’t called when she expected. They’d met on the weekend, he’d called on the Tuesday and suggested meeting up a couple of days later, she’d said she wasn’t free and suggested the weekend, he said he was away that weekend but would call the following week, and she was flipping her wig by Sunday evening fretting about if and when he’d call. When she got in touch with me, it was the Thursday i.e the weekend he was away hadn’t even arrived yet. I.e When she got in touch with me, she had known of this man for five days.

Too.Much.Drama.

The above scenario came from the current post on the excellent blog Baggage Reclaim. In it, blogger Natalie goes on to point out several ways in which obsessing over things like this are really about you, and not the other person.

I wanted to write a little bit about phone numbers and strangers. It's something I have some experience with, and wonder what other folks have experienced.

I have asked perhaps five or six women I've met in various places for their phone numbers in the past. And given that I took the risk of doing that, I called everyone of them back within a week of the ask. Usually within 3-4 days.

I have also done the mutual exchange route. And I have handed women my number and e-mail address in the past as well.

Here are, to best of my recognition, the results from all of that.

On the plus side, with each successive attempt, a bit of confidence seemed to develop in presenting my interest in someone.

In addition, in more recent years, I have become more able to hand out the contact info, or ask for the contact info, and then let go of any attending stories about what will happen.

On the other hand, I can recall just a single instance when any of this led to a dating situation. Several years ago, I ended up going on three or four dates with a woman who I met in a coffee shop just once, and got the nerve up to ask for her phone number. Otherwise, unless I'm forgetting something, all of those other times ended up being dead ends.

In addition, there were at least a few times the woman in question was dating someone else, and was just humoring my request for contact information or the sharing of my contact information.

Now, I'm well aware of the juiciness of the story of meeting a stranger, and then somehow, as if by magic, he or she becomes "THE ONE." Movies and television are filled with these kinds of stories. And the popularity of approaches like "Pick Up Artistry" can easily make one think that this kind of thing happens a lot.

However, I'm pretty sure that it actually doesn't. That the lion's share of long term relationships don't involve meeting some random person in a coffee shop, bar, on the bus, in the airport, etc., exchanging numbers, calling, and then falling in love. It's just not that likely, and yet I can imagine that a fair number of readers have felt like Claire before. I know I have fretted over making a call to, or getting a call from, some woman I knew next to nothing about. And it just seems foolish looking back on it now.

Which doesn't mean one should never do these kind of things. But perhaps it's best to remember the odds, and not put a lot of energy into chasing down, or fretting about, strangers.

What do you think?

Two Dates in One

2011-10-02T11:21:00.000-07:00

Some of you may have noticed how much I focus on paying attention. Specifically, paying attention to - as best as is possible - the whole picture of what's happening in your life. On this blog, it's about the intimate relationships in your life, or the ones you want to have in your life.

The main reason for this is that I've noticed how so much of our individual and collective relationship misery is tied to poor attention skills. Seeing things that aren't happening and then reacting from that place is pretty common, as is missing the vital cues arriving at your feet, sometimes every time your with someone. Then there's the misuse of attention, placing it upon a narrow swath of elements and assuming that those elements constitute the whole of a relationship. All of this breeds a lot of suffering.

So, I want to be a voice for bringing your attention back to dating and relationships in a holistic way. To develop less fixation on a narrow list of desired attributes, and develop more of an ability to response (as opposed to react) to what's happening in your relationships as a whole. This is easier said than done, but I truly believe - having experienced it myself - that stronger attention skills make for stronger, healthier relationships. And also healthier ends to relationships when that it called for.

Let me share a recent experience as an example.

I went on a date last week. We had exchanged several e-mails and seemed to have a lot in common. In noticed that her language sounded similar to mine. That the way we drew conclusions appeared to be on a similar page, something I haven't often experienced doing online dating. In reading these e-mails and setting a date, there were moments when I started to get excited. Started thinking that maybe she was going to be girlfriend material and that I could finally put the searching mind to rest. I can imagine some of you out there have been through this very thing before first dates. It's almost impossible not to get a little excited, nor is that really a problem.

However, unlike in my earlier days of online dating, this time I didn't let the stories in my head grow. Images of the first kiss? Let it go. First vacation? Let it go. Working together on some project? Let it go. Anything in relation to this women I simply let go. Again and again. Until I was (mostly) able to arrived at the actual date and be with the person sitting across from me, experiencing whatever was going to happen.

Which turned out to be like being on two dates at once. Something I attribute to my developed attention skills.

On the one hand, we had this wide ranging conversation that kept finding intersection points in sometimes unusual places. She had worked in the after school program that was next door to the elementary school I used to work in. We had a couple of disparate friends in common. She was just as passionate about certain social issues as I am. There was plenty on the surface that "looked right."

However, there were also all these other things going on. She seemed impatient and in need of dominating the conversation. Her relationship with her immediate family was terribly strained. When I leaned in a bit at one point, she leaned back. Her body language in general was pretty closed. I also felt some stress in the pit of my stomach while talking to her, and probably wasn't as physically relaxed and open as I usually am. And this was a different feeling from first date jitters; it had a quality of pushing away from, as if my body was telling me something wasn't right between us. Furthermore, we really never talked about what it was we wanted in a relationship, even on a basic level. In fact, it was hard to tell if she was interested in a relationship, or if she was still exploring the dating scene.

If this date had happened three or four years ago, I would have either missed most of that "underlying" stuff, or I would have minimized whatever I did experience, placing more emphasis on the points of connections. Which would have led me to pursuing more dates, and perhaps a relationship might have resulted.

However, as I sat by a lake after the date, what I realized was that the feeling tone that lingered from the whole experience was a lack of warmth. That even though I felt some attraction to this woman, and knew that we had plenty of shared interests and viewpoints, there was none of the mutual caring and warmth that's so needed for a healthy, long term relationship. Now, obviously, those qualities are something that need time and shared experiences to mature. Yet, when I consider every relationship I have even been in for any significant length of time, there was always, from the beginning, a spark of that warmth and caring.

So, needless to say, I decided not to pursue further dates with her, and it seems she was on the same page.

This is the power of skilled attention. And I'm convinced that these skills will eventually lead me into a great relationship, if such a relationship is a part of my life path. At the same time, I realize that these same skills can bring some bitter pills. You probably stay single more often than if you opt to just do things like you've always done. You realize that there are a lot of near misses out there, including ones that under different circumstances, might have become relationships. You get to be face to face with your impatience, loneliness, desire, and sometimes grief in ways that you really may not want to.

But in the end, I feel less burdened by thoughts about relationships. Less mired in angst, negativity, regrets, and clinging to the past. And more able to accept what's happening, even if it's not what I want. This is a good thing for anyone who is single, but frankly, it's also a good thing for anyone who is part of a couple.

Love itself is deeply cultivated attention trained upon your beloved, and the shared joy that comes from doing so. Without attention, there's no love. In some ways, it's as simple as that.

Texting Vs. the Phone: How Focusing on Surface Differences Doesn't Help You Date Better

2011-09-29T15:42:00.000-07:00

Over at the blog Dating Diva, Toni writes about a past relationship with a guy who loved to text her. And who chose not to use the phone. I have noticed that there seems to be a fair amount of angst around this particular phenomenon, some of which I feel sympathy with. However, I also wonder if the conclusions being drawn are sometimes entirely too broad sweeping.

Here are some of Toni's comments:

Looking back, I see that relationship as the embodiment of how technology is slowly killing romance. It's draining the courting out of courtship. And frankly, I'm ready to hit "delete" on the whole thing.
A flirtatious text here and there is fine, but a text of more than 100 characters? That's overkill. Call me old-fashioned, but I wonder what's so "advanced" about these so- called advancements in communication. The same gadgets that allow you to be in touch all the time sometimes mask the fact that you never really touched at all.
My friends tell me to get over it (most via email or text - hmmmm) they say texting is a way of life. I say sure - I agree sometimes I'd rather not be bothered talking on the phone but a text or an email cannot replace the human voice or touch.

Now, first off, as a non-cell phone owner who hasn't texted in his life, I can relate to her questioning the value of such technology.

At the same time, as I wrote in my comment on her blog:

The phone was considered in almost exactly the same negative light as texting and e-mailing are back in the day. During the early days of phones, people frequently called it "the Devil's tool" and other unsavory names. And certainly, when it came to romance, it was considered a lazy substitute for a well written letter, song, or poem.

To me, it's about how someone engages a relationship that matters most. I'm guessing texter dude just wasn't that engaged. I've known plenty of people who've had similarly dis-engaged relationships that centered around phone calls.

On a few other blogs, I have seen people offer a somewhat different, but almost equally broad view of texters. Basically, these folks argue that anyone who uses texting as a the main form of communication when you're not together "really isn't that into you." A point which I think is total bs. Not because it's never true, but because people are privileging one form of technology - the phone - over another (the text box on a phone), thinking that someone calling you is somehow more loving, intimate, and demonstrating of interest.

As a frequent public transit user, I have witnessed thousands of phone conversations, many of them obviously to a partner or significant other. Flipping your phone out while on a bus or train is nothing special, and in fact, seems to be a favorite past time of people who desire to stave off boredom and who aren't interested in talking to the strangers sitting right next to them. I see the same thing happening at coffee shops, cafes, and all sorts of other places. And yet, because the phone has become naturalized in our psyches, some of us seem to think that using it often to call another is a sign of interest, romance, and even love.

The reality, though, is that it's can never just about phone use or texting. It's always about how someone engages a relationship as a whole that really matters.

Take that bus ride. Maybe the guy I'm sitting next to really loves his girlfriend, and he's calling her to check in and see how her day has gone. Then there's the guy sitting behind us who is doing the same exact thing - calling the girlfriend - but is doing so because there is 30 minutes left before his stop and he's tired of looking out the window. On the surface, they both would appear to some folks to be taking care of the relationship, but if you move below the surface, you'll see that only one is actually doing so.

Creating romance or demonstrating interest are not about surface appearances. In fact, I'd argue that because every person is unique, the ways one goes about creating romance and/or demonstrating interest will be at least someone different with each new partner. It's amazing to me how often people seem to forget this, while also at the same time demanding to be viewed themselves as unique individuals. Just goes to show how challenging it can be to see the world outside of your own head.

Dealing with First Date Worries

2011-09-27T09:40:00.000-07:00

Reader Snowdrop left a comment on my last post that, in my mind, brought up how there are limitations to using the NVC process on initial dates. Here is part of his comment, followed by my response.

For me, when someone is late, I spiral through all sorts of feelings and thoughts, from "I've been stood up" to "something terrible has happened to her!" It's quite hard for me to hold onto any particular emotion (such as, anger at being stood up/kept waiting) when I have so many theories. But it does add up very much to "turbulent emotions".

The "dealing with a pattern" example, I feel a little conflicted by. While being non-confrontational is important, to me it feels like your example doesn't actually set out what's needed to fix the issue.

The statement part seems to allow the response, "Well, there's no need to worry, so just relax about it." That answer doesn't have to be disrespectful or dismissive in intent or attitude, it is just that that person's character says that relaxing and going with the flow is the obvious answer to them. But to a worrier (like me!) it's no help at all. (I think a worrier and a relaxer can get on well together without having to stop being themselves, but by making room for the other - maybe the rest of the evening can be "relaxer-friendly" as long as the time for meeting is fixed, for example.)

Well, in terms of dating, I think the NVC process is a lot more applicable when there's already a relationship established. The "can we talk about it" sentiment then has behind it pattern considerations, as well as some minimum requirements (or requests) that have developed as a consequence of being in a relationship with each other.

With a first or second date, you don't know if something like being late is a pattern or not, so what do you do?

I guess after all these years of going on dates, one thing I have learned is to practice dropping whatever stories are coming up in my mind about what's happening. If she's late, I practice letting go of "being stood up" or "she's been in an accident" or "she isn't really interested," because I have no idea at that point. And the same goes for anything else that happens during those early dates.

At the same time, I take note if she's late. Or if she says something that really runs counter to my values. Or if she does something - like bitch about the waitstaff at a busy restaurant - I take notice. So that, if this kind of stuff continues, I can have more clarity and know how to respond later. Or, of course, if there is a lot of that kind of stuff, I can decide not to see her again.

In other words, I'm not in a rush to "hold someone accountable" on early dates, unless they do something that really crosses my boundaries or is highly disrespectful. Like making racist comments, to give an example.

One of the reasons I chose the "late" example is that it's an old trigger for me, having had a girlfriend in the past who was frequently late. And I have found that if a date is late, it can bring up memories from that past relationship, which have nothing to do with the date. Her being 15 minutes late could be a one time thing due to traffic, but if I'm raising an issue with her lateness right away - coming from that old relationship baggage - it's likely to come off poorly.

A lot this really keeps coming back to timing to me. Even if something causes me worry (I'm definitely not immune from worrying) on a first or second date, like tardiness, I err on the side of dealing with it internally as best as possible. Sometimes, I do choose to say something like you said above in relation to lateness, for example, but not at the beginning of a date. Especially the first date.

What do you all think?

Why Totalizing Judgments Fail Us

2011-09-25T12:57:00.001-07:00

One common paired theme that seems to come up on one dating blog after another is lying and truth telling. Obviously, these two not only apply to romantic relationships - they are found in all human relationships, and frequently are the pivot points between harmony and discord.

But when you get down to it, what is a lie and what is the truth? It's a simple question that isn't always easily answered. Furthermore, when it comes to working with others in your life in a caring, respectful manner, the issue is timing, as well as how something is said can be just as important (or moreso even) than whether it's truthful or not. In other words, I think people sometimes get too fixated on a black and white sense of truth telling and lying, forgetting that everything happens in a larger context.

As a general rule, I find it really helpful to make a discernment between basic facts of a given situation, and evaluations or judgments. This idea is loosely coming from a relationship practice called NVC, or Non-violent communication, which was developed by psychologist and social activist Marshall Rosenberg. What Rosenberg discovered working in situations where conflict was quite high and challenging was that when people spoke from a place of their feelings and perceived needs, instead of a place of judgment and evaluative criticism, not only was conflict reduced, but it became easier for everyone involved in a given situation to gain clarity about the truth. Having taken workshops on NVC in the past, I'd even go so far as to say that the truth isn't a set of statements - it's more about a way of being and acting. A process, in other words.

Some key components of this process are the following:

1. Deep listening and patience, even in the face of things you don't want to hear.

2. A willingness to speak from a place of how you feel and what you believe your needs are, instead of judgment.

3. Making an effort to separate factual observations from evaluations or opinions.

4. Being open to making requests of another, as well as receiving their requests.

Now, all of this takes practice. It's not something you can simply try once and be skilled at. In addition, I believe that within any given relationship, there are times and situations that call for some judgements or evaluations to be made. But even then, I believe that something like NVC can be helpful in delivering that information to another in a way that it might be heard.

Let's consider point number three above in more detail, since this is one that often trips people up, whether on a first date or after ten years of marriage.

Suppose your waiting for your date or partner and they are late. Here are two ways you could think about the situation:

Factual observation: "He/she is 20 minutes late."

Evaluation/Judgment: "He/she doesn't respect me. He/she isn't interested in me."

If your mind is like mine, you might have the tendency to flip towards the second kind of statement. Statements like that seem to offer an answer to what's going on, and also tap into the anxiety, anger, or other turbulent emotions that might be happening in response to uncertainty.

However, although it may feel good in the short term to internally blast your date or partner for being late, it's actually not helpful in terms of the relationship as a whole, nor does it do anything to get at the truth of the situation. You're just speculating about motives or reasons, and usually said speculation is all negative. Instead of thinking "I don't know why they are late. Maybe it's this or that." You leap to the worst case scenarios, or make some totalizing judgment about the person that does little more than burn off a little steam in the short term. How often have you called someone an asshole in your mind (or even to their face), only to find out that there was a very good reason behind what it was that they did or didn't do?

None of this, of course, means that you should put up with patterns of behavior that aren't healthy or respectful from a date or partner. Obviously, if someone is chronically late, you have every right to say something. But when you decide to speak up about someone's chronic lateness, you have to consider what your intention is. Do you want to mend the relationship? Do you desire to stay together with this person? Or are you so pissed off that you don't care anymore?"

If you want to aim towards maintaining the relationship, then even when speaking of the pattern, you can re-frame it in a way where you might better be heard.

For example, you might say something like "You have been late to the last several dates. When you are late, I feel anxious and sometimes angry because I don't know why you are late, and I value our time together."

And you can, in the spirit of NVC, add a request here, such as "Would you be willing to talk a little about this with me?"

Again, one of the main reasons for approaching things in this way is to maximize the chances that you'll be heard. And to maximize the chance that you will hear the other person. So much of conflicts boil down to not listening deeply enough to each other, and simply jumping to conclusions or judgments that may have nothing to do with the actual truth. When I look back at some of my relationships during my 20s, I kind of cringe at the numerous ways in which I failed to listen well, and simply assumed the worst.

And so, I offer NVC, as well as a general call for deeper listening, as methods of truth finding, and also relationship strengthening.

Your thoughts?

Dating Anger

2011-09-23T09:14:00.001-07:00

I was out with a friend last night, talking about relationships, and the topic of anger came up. While we discussed various ways about how anger can manifest and cause trouble, I had a flashback to a woman I dated several years ago. More specifically, the flashback involved how I responded to her telling me she was sleeping with another guy.

Here's the basic set up. We had been dating about a month. We got along pretty well, and things appeared to be heading towards a committed relationship. Given that I'm not into "juggling dates," I had stopped going to the online dating sites, and had told the other two women I was writing to that I had started seeing someone. Judging by her increased interest in spending time with me, as well as the increased physical intimacy, I assumed she had done the same. Turns out that wasn't the case.

As a relative newbie to online dating back then, and also someone who really didn't have much experience dating outside of my "friend and acquaintance pool," I was unprepared for the kind of issues that can come up when you date people you have no prior connection with.

So, there we were, sitting at a coffee shop having a conversation, and I must have brought up something about her being "my girlfriend" or something of the sort.

And she says "But I've been seeing so and so as well."

"What?" (with confused look)

"Oh, I've been spending Fridays with so and so, and Saturdays with you."

Tensely, trying to hold it together, I respond, "But I thought we were becoming a couple?"

"Well, I like you a lot" (touches my hand) "but I don't know if you're "the one?"

"How can you know something like that for sure after a month?"

"I don't know." (looks away) "I didn't think it was a big deal. Are you angry?"

I pause, briefly surveying the room as my body began shaking. "No. No. I'm not angry."

"You seem angry?"

"No. I'm not."

"I'm sorry. I just don't know."

About ten minutes later the relationship was over.

Looking back on this situation now, there are plenty of signs and missteps that were taken. First of all, there were the assumptions both of us made that ultimately led to things unraveling. Next, there were the signs I missed that clearly pointed to something not being quite "right" about the relationship unfolding. Friday wasn't the only day marked off on her calendar. I actually only had two or three evenings to choose from to spend time with her. And I had no idea what she did with the rest of her free time. In addition, she didn't really make a lot of contact in between dates - it seemed like I was often the one initiating contact. At the time, I thought it was because she wanted me to "chase her," to be "the man," but obviously that wasn't the issue really.

And then there's the anger during that conversation. Back then, I was highly attached to an image of myself as a guy who is basically nice, kind, and respectful. I really loathed those men who screamed at their girlfriends or wives, and who basically had no control over their anger. Unfortunately, though, I was almost the opposite. I tended to stuff or minimize anger, to the point where it actually sucked some of the life out of me. My confidence was shoddy. I too willingly placed my needs to the side to support others, including the women I dated. And then would have these occasional angry outbursts over usually quite trivial things, which when they came within a dating situation, often were surprising for the person I was to dating experience.

This particular incident is an almost comical expression of that. But it would be another three to years before I would start to see the pattern, and make changes in my life as a result.

One of the main things I took out of the work I did around anger and relationships is that much of it was tied to the assumptions I would make and then believed in wholeheartedly, even when there was evidence to the contrary. And I have to say that in more recent years, I have had much less anger drama in my relationships because I make fewer assumptions, and hold those assumptions I do make in a much looser, lighter hand. And I'm more honest, in general, when I'm not happy with something going on.

35 Things I have Learned

2011-09-20T09:01:00.001-07:00

Inspired by this post, here are 35 things I have learned (or think I have learned) about dating and relationships, one for each year I have been alive (in no particular order).

1. Wanting to always be right is a lousy strategy in dating and in life in general.

2. Fear is behind so many of the mistakes we make.

3. Things are often unclear at the end of a first date, even if both people like each other.

4. Anyone who expects you to be a mind reader much of the time is probably not the best choice of romantic partners.

5. Talking a lot about former relationships on a first date is rarely a good sign.

6. Assumptions are a royal path to hell.

7. Just because a relationship ends doesn't mean it was a "failure."

8. Pay close attention

9. Delay final judgments

10. Just because you get along well doesn't mean you're a great match.

11. Just because you have a lot in common doesn't mean you're a great match.

12. Be willing to break your own rules.

13. A little kindness goes a long way.

14. Whenever you start making negative generalizations about the entire group of folks in your dating pool, it's time to take a step back and maybe a break.

15. Too much optimism is foolish; not enough optimism is also foolish.

16. Way too many of us are unrealistic about love and romance, and then wonder why we're so despondent about it all.

17. Being single is absolutely fine.

18. You often attract what you are, in some way, doing in your own life.

19. There is no magic formula. For any of it.

20. It's best to maintain silence on Facebook and other social media about current dating experiences, positive or negative.

21. It's best to also maintain the same silence about specific problems occurring in a long term relationship. Save that kind of stuff for face to face conversations with friends and family.

22. Arguments often start over the stupidest things.

23. Whatever stupid thing you're arguing about is almost always not the real issue.

24. Having sex with someone always changes things, even if those changes are for the better.

25. Most of us aren't good at rejecting others.

26. Avoiding conflict almost always leads to more conflict.

27. Don't deliberately try to change your partner.

28. Don't date people who treat you like a rehab project.

29. Learning how to be honest about what you are feeling and experiencing without leaping to judgment of the other is perhaps the most important relationship skill to develop.

30. If pop culture is the biggest influence on how you view and approach relationships, you're in major, major trouble.

31. Being passive and expecting someone to just appear in your life and do all the work to get a relationship going is a really stupid approach to dating.

32. Adults need to remember that we aren't in high school anymore. Some of us haven't been there for a hell of a long time, but somehow continue to act like they never left.

33. Replace "high school" with "college" in number 32.

34. Let go of your definitions of love and learn to actually do it, with the actual person you are with.

35. Whatever you do, stop taking yourself so seriously.

Gendered Relationship Narratives

2011-09-17T15:04:00.000-07:00

Over at one of my favorite blogs, Kloncke, Katie offers a look into her relationship with her boyfriend, and then examines it through wider lens of cultural critique. The whole post is really worth checking out, but I want to take up the following piece:

Ryan tells this funny joke sometimes about one method, half-conscious at most, by which person X tries to evade domestic work and pile it on a partner. “But you’re so good at [cooking, doing laundry, calming a fretful child]. If I do it, I’ll just fuck it up.” A passive-aggressive compliment-trap, which leaves the other person feeling obligated to do the thing they’re so much better at doing.

Obviously, this is one of the big problems with the naturalization of gender roles in heteronormative family requirements. Men are raised to believe that they don’t have to learn how to cook/clean/mend/mind children because women are so naturally good at it. Jay appears to have no clue that his wife was brought up to learn how to be a “good woman,” which means acquiring certain social and reproductive skills, including staying attuned to the needs of her socially-sanctioned husband and children. She might enjoy learning those skills; she might not. The point is, the skills aren’t endemic to her based on her gender. For a whole host of reasons that I won’t get into here, she’s not really free to self-determine her own gender identity and presentation, fertility, or (as a working-class person) the circumstances of her productive and reproductive labor.

First off, the "Jay" she mentions is a character from James Agee’s Southern novel A Death In the Family, which Katie offers readers a passage from just above the section I quoted.

About an hour ago, I called my grandmother. She's 88 years old, today being her birthday. We had a very short conversation, about 4 minutes, but two things struck me about it. The first was that I mentioned cooking myself dinner, and she started offering me suggestions on how I might improve on it. Which didn't bother me, but did get me thinking about the whole cooking thing and gender roles. The second thing that struck me was that after she asked me how I was doing, she said "Are you working yet?" I've been mostly unemployed the past year, picking up a bit of freelance writing here and there, while I'm going through a yoga teacher training program and expand my online "presence." Anyway, I told grandma that I hadn't found a job yet, but was doing a lot of other things. She proceeded to talk more about jobs, as if anything else I was doing was secondary. And I thought to myself "Would she do the same if she were talking with my sister?"

Now, a few things to add to this that complicate things. My grandmother and I haven't always had the easiest relationship over the years. Whereas my sister seems to get along with grandma well enough to talk with her more in depth about her life, and what she thinks about the world. So, to some extent, today's phone call to grandma was like most I have with her - short, and thin on specifics. Besides my relationship with grandma, there's also the fact that Americans in general rely on "work talk" heavily to begin and/or even sustain conversations. Anyone active in the dating world can probably attest to the fact that work often is one of the first subjects that comes up on a first date.

However, even with both of factors, I still feel there's some interesting gender role stuff to unpack in relation to that phone conversation.

As a man who has done an awful lot of volunteer work and unpaid non-profit development in the community, I have noticed over the years how such efforts aren't taken as seriously by potential employers as "paid work" is. This is most definitely a function of capitalism's definitions of "value" being tied to making money and producing, but I also wonder if there is a gendered element going on. Do women who put more time and energy into volunteering and unpaid community work get more "kudos" from employers, given that such unpaid efforts were often more in the "women's realm" historically? Or perhaps a better question might be "Is volunteering and unpaid community work" just devalued in general due to it's historical place as something more women did with their "extra time"?

The cooking issue, I think, is a little more clear cut. On the whole, as Katie mentioned above, men aren't seen as "naturally" able to cook. And although I do believe things have changed to some degree in that there is less direct expectation that women take up the cooking duties in a household, I also believe that the majority of men still are raised without much in the way of cooking skills. Which tends to lead to situations like Katie's "passive-aggressive narrative," where dudes who can't cook still figure out ways to lean heavy on the women in their lives.

This has definitely not been my experience. I started learning how to cook at around age 10. Having to help care for a little sister while your mother works puts you in a different position than the average kid might be in. I learned to cook, clean, and do my own laundry before I finished elementary school, and didn't really consider the gendered quality attached to those household chores until much later on.

In recent years, I have taken to wondering what people mean when they speak of wanting "traditional" or "old-fashioned" relationships. I see this kind of talk online. I see it in dating profiles. I've dated women who have said such phrases.
And when the issue gets pressed a little bit, I find that definitions are kind of all over the place. However one thing that does seem true is that the majority of women speaking about "traditional" and "old fashioned" are not talking about wanting to return to staying at home, and being solely responsible for things like household chores and raising children. And yet, I bet you that a percentage of men - upon hearing such language from women - think that this is what they're speaking about, at least to a large degree. Perhaps they figure she will work, but will also take care of the children, clean the house, and cook most of the meals. Something that is nearly impossible to sustain. And isn't really desired anyway.

Where's the Effort?

2011-09-15T11:52:00.000-07:00

Women often complain about receiving bland, one line messages from men on their online dating accounts. Having seen enough examples of these shown to me by female friends and others I know, I'm inclined to believe that said complaints are justified. Perhaps what some of you out there don't know is that men, too, experience the same thing. Probably not as often, given the imbalance in first contacts, but still it happens to us.

Here are two recent examples from my own profile.

This first one is responding to the top ten list I added for some humor in the profile.

"Does #4 mean u still have a tattoo on your chest?

Hehe

Hi!"

That was the message. Cute, eh?
Here's another even less specific one.

"I like your profile so I thought I'd say "hello" :)"

Well, hello to you too.

Anyway, I think it's fairly obvious how uninspiring these kinds of e-mails are. The last one doesn't even ask me a question about my profile to respond to. Just as men who write things like "hey sexy" and "what's up?" don't inspire people to respond back, neither do cutesy one liners from women.

Even having a single relevant question, or speaking about a few shared interests, usually is all that's needed. And really, it doesn't take that long to do that. If all you can muster is a bland or cutesy one liner, you're probably better off not sending anything. That's how I see it anyway.

"Men Like a Challenge"

2011-09-14T09:20:00.000-07:00

Men don’t value something if it comes too easily.

If you sleep with us on Date 1, that’s a pretty strong indicator that you’ve slept with plenty of other people on Date 1. And most men don’t like to think of their future wives as “easy”, even though, intellectually, we can acknowledge that there’s nothing wrong with a woman who enjoys sex for sex’s sake.

Basically, men like a challenge – to pursue you, to win you over, to charm you, to work our way around the bases and accomplish what few men have accomplished before. And the more you slow us down and give us the opportunity to get to know you platonically, the more reasons we’ll discover that we want you to be our girlfriend.

If you sleep with me on Date 1, I’ve climbed the mountain too fast and haven’t discovered what makes you amazing personally. The thrill of the chase is gone.

I’m not talking about whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. I’m saying that it’s real and that your best bet to a relationship is to delay sex. If you can handle sleeping with perfect strangers and hoping it works out, go ahead. No judgment here.

This is a quote from Evan Marc Katz, whose comments and posts I tend to like. This particular comment, though, doesn't fly with me.

Here is what I wrote in response.

--------

Oh man, I’m so on a different wavelength than Evan on this. Which is good because it offers the women here another male take to complicate things :)

First off, the the longest relationship I have been in included sex on the third date. It really never crossed my mind that she was “easy” or that she was someone who “slept” around. What happened happened naturally. There wasn’t any excessive flirting or enticing going on on either end because neither of us were like that.

Second, I despise chasing and pursuing. Absolutely despise it. Perhaps it works well for some men and women, but I also find that for a lot of others, it seems to be a series of games and push-pull challenges that create a lot of frustration if things don’t work out.

Third, if I start seeing someone (i.e. it’s gone beyond a few dates), I tend to stop looking at other “options.” In other words, even if we haven’t decided yet that we’re going to be exclusive, I treat it as exclusive so that I can get a clearer picture of who she is. This is probably not something many people do these days, given how much date juggling seems to go on. But I find it a hell of a lot easier, and I guess more respectful in my mind, to focus on one woman if we’ve made it past the intro. stage.

Now, with all that said, I actually have mostly chosen to delay sex beyond the first few dates. Not because I think it’s wrong, but because it just hasn’t felt right for me. And I also don’t find that I have enough of a connection after a single date, or even two usually, to even consider becoming that intimate with a woman. The few times I have rushed in were in situations where both of us basically weren’t in a position to have a committed relationship – i.e. were on the rebound and a bit desperate. However, with the Ex I mentioned above, we both commented on how it felt early to being sleeping together, but at the same time, it felt right.

I do think a lot of this comes down to intentions though. Evan and I might differ on approach to some degree, but we both have had the intent of finding a woman to stay with, grow with, develop a life together with. If you have that kind of intention driving you, then you’ll probably treat sex differently, regardless of when it ends up happening.

------

I want to expand a bit on the "chasing and pursuing" portion of the comment. What I mean by that mostly is the playing hard to get kind of nonsense that some women pull, partly because it's "fun" for them, partly because it's a power play, and partly to fulfill this story that men "need" the thrill of the chase. I also reject the idea that I am supposed to, as a man, "woo" a woman with gifts, dinners, and whatever else. And finally, if I need to "charm you" and "win you over," perhaps we aren't a good match in the first place.

With that said, I'd like to think that some of the elements of the above might occur more naturally during the dating process. That who I am, and how I naturally act and care for others, for example, will be charming and "a winner" in a woman's eyes. That, if I find out you interested in a novelist I don't know, for example, I might go and research that writer and then be able to have a conversation with you the next time we're together. Or if I know you like a certain kind of food, I might offer to prepare it for you sometime.

Part of the goal of this blog is to advocate for being more authentic with your relationships - particularly intimate romantic relationships, but I think that at least some of what I talk about could be applied to any relationship in your life. When we rely on games, power plays, lists of desired traits, stereotypes, and arbitrary rules to drive the way we handle relationships, we tend to cloud over who we actually are and what our deepest wishes and intentions might be. Obviously, it can be useful in a practical sense to, for example, have a list of desired traits or to have a set of dating rules to guide you, but all of that should really play a secondary role in my opinion.

What do you think?

"Men Want to Feel Manly"

2011-09-11T11:35:00.000-07:00

I think what it boils down to is men wanting to feel manly but still appreciated. I would always offer, but any man who allows you to pay (especially on a first or second date) is probably not that invested. When guys like you, they want to impress you. They do that by proving they can provide for you. It's an instinctual thing.

There's been a whole new round of blog posts on the very old topic of who pays for first dates, including the post from which the above quote came from (in the comments section). I chose this particular comment because it encapsulates some of the broader issues that stem from the single action of paying for a date. And, to be honest, the quote kind of pisses me off, so I'm going to use that energy to dig in a little deeper, instead of just ranting.

"men want to feel manly but still appreciated" - Earlier in the comment, the woman spoke of going on a date and making a gesture to pay at the end of dinner, which led to the man thanking her for offering, and then offering to pay the bill himself. I'm not terribly interested in rehashing the issues around such gestures, but I do want to speak about this "manly" business. Although I am a man, I mostly feel like who I am and how I live in the world is not considered stereotypically "manly," even though I occasionally do or say something that fits the narrative. In the morning, for example, I might have hands covered in bicycle grease and by evening, I might be in the kitchen, cooking dinner for friends or family. I know I'm not alone in being like this, and those of us who don't fit the "norm" come from all sorts of backgrounds sexually, racially, spiritually, and the rest. So, when I hear someone say men want to be manly, I think "I don't. Not all the time anyway. What does it mean to be a man anyway? Can you really boil it down to a single story?"

"any man who allows you to pay (especially on a first or second date) is probably not that invested." Let's talk about this word "invested." When I read her sentence here, the first thing I think of is that this is how people think in capitalist countries. Investment in relationships, at least in the beginning, so often comes down to money, material gifts, and proving you aren't "cheap." Never mind if you listen to the other person's stories. Never mind if ask the other person about their passions and really want to know. Never mind if you pick up the book they dropped, or hold the door open on the way out, or clear the table at the end of the date. Many of the things that are vitally important to maintaining a healthy, long term relationship get missed or minimized, and then people sit and wonder why they're dating lives suck all the time.

"When a guy likes you, they want to impress you." You know, I used to believe in this one. I used to put a lot more effort into telling the "right stories," showing my strengths, and yes, even paying for the first date every time. And then, after how ever many dozen of dates I had gone on, it started to dawn on me that there was too much acting going on. I was trying too damned hard to make myself look good, instead of just being who I really am, flaws and all. It's going to come out anyway, so the way I see it, trying to impress (regardless of gender) is just an easy way to get into relationships that are ultimately doomed. Or are going to go through some awful growing pains when your true selves start to emerge.

"they can provide for you" - Hmm, I guess the 1950's are still alive and well. I have nothing more to say about that one.

"It's an instinctual thing." - Whenever people bring up instinct or biology my bullshit detector goes wild. Doesn't anyone remember how prevalent this kind of stuff was in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and how such narratives were used to keep women in "their place" as second class citizens at best. While instinct and the biology of the sexes play some role in how people act and think, it's also the case that socialization processes are a big part of the equation. The origin of men as "providers" is, at least in part, a result of a number of cultural shifts towards settled societies, urbanization, and more recently, industrialization.

In the end, I'd actually argue that a lot of what we now consider to be "manly" is socially conditioned. Just consider the curly haired wigs and poofy "dresses" that American and European men commonly wore just a few centuries ago. And the same goes for what might be considered "womanly." Even though we know biology has a role, we have to recognize the myriad of ways in which cultures change and adapt, and use that understanding to maintain a flexible mind around dating and relationships.

That's what I think, anyway. How about you?

The Friday Five

2011-09-09T12:56:00.000-07:00

Five somewhat random comments from yours truly in response to various dating blog posts and comments.

1. When men pay for a first date, they are mostly following social convention, or are trying to avoid rejection because of perceived cheapness.

2. If you hold firmly to what you believe is the definition of rude or inconsiderate, chances are you'll reject a hell of a lot of your dates, including some that might actually be potential good matches.

3. Applying "traditional" dating rules and expectations to online dating and dating total strangers might be a mistake. Maybe it's just me, but some of the expectations people have (men and women) around first dates with strangers seem to be through the roof unreasonable.

4. I think these are good questions to consider while on a first date with someone.
Is he or she attentive to you, and/or is a good listener? Is your date open to new ideas? Does the person have a sense of humor? Do they to have some lightness about mistakes and difficulties from their past? (By lightness I mean not bitter, heavy, angry, or obsessed about things from their past). And are you actually enjoying yourself?

5. If you think no one "good enough" is out there, perhaps you also believe, maybe unconsciously, that you're not good enough.

Issues with the Language of Dating Angst

2011-09-08T08:27:00.000-07:00

An interesting discussion appeared in the comments section of my last post. It essentially considered casual phrases and words people use to describe others, which have attached to them a pejorative or derogatory meaning, sometimes unknown to the speaker saying them. Although these phrases come up in a variety of contexts, given the focus of this blog, I'll just stick to the dating/relationship context.

The conversation stemmed from this comment by 36andsingle:

I'm also less likely to date someone who lives in the suburbs (of my town, anyway, this doesn't always apply in other cities) because my experience is that suburban guys are really lame.

It sounds pretty innocent, doesn't it? And certainly, people use the word "lame" fairly often in describing both people and situations they think are boring or lacking depth.

Another reader, SnowdropExplodes, however questioned the use of lame, which led to a listing of lame's dictionary definitions. Which are the following:

1. crippled or physically disabled, especially in the foot or leg so as to limp or walk with difficulty.
2. impaired or disabled through defect or injury: a lame arm.
3. weak; inadequate; unsatisfactory; clumsy: a lame excuse.
4. Slang . out of touch with modern fads or trends; unsophisticated.

36andsingle writes that she meant number 4 when she made the statement quoted above, to which Snowdrop replied:

Definitions 3 and 4 are using "lame" as a derogatory term, and are discriminatory language against people with disabilities. Just because you can find the N-word in the dictionary, doesn't mean it's okay to use it. If you found the derogatory usage of "gay" to mean "boring or uncool" (as opposed to "homosexual") in a dictionary, would you be comfortable using that, too?

So, I'd like to sat that first off, this kind of stuff is really challenging precisely because the use of these words and phrases are so embedded in everyday speaking. If I had a dollar for how often I heard someone refer to something or another person as "gay" in a pejorative sense, I'd be ultra wealthy. And when it comes to people talking about their dates and relationships, there seems to be an extra charge because many of us place large parts of our identities, rightly or wrongly, within the context of intimate relationships. So when things aren't going well in that area of our lives, when we've been on dozens of dates or are with someone who isn't meeting our needs in any sense, then the nastiness tends to get ramped up.

Calling people on the use of pejorative or derogatory language is always difficult, but when it's in the context of talking about, for example, the long line of boring guys someone dated and is annoyed by, there's something more difficult going on. Partly because of what I wrote above, but also, I imagine, partly because it might be a surprising turn of conversation. You're talking about yet another shitty date, and suddenly someone says "Why did you call that guy faggy? What's up with that?" That kind of questioning might seem out of context. Furthermore, if you haven't really put much thought into a given word or phrase, it might seem like the other person is just adding insult to injury.

Having read numerous online dating blogs and forums over the past year, I have witnessed the ease in which people who are frustrated with dating and/or their relationships spew pejoratives. Some heterosexual men ooze with words like "cunt" and "slut," while some heterosexual women produce variations on the gay slur theme without blinking. And regardless of sexual orientation, words like "retarded" and "lame" are so commonplace that almost no one pauses to consider what's happening because the focus is on issues with dating and relationships.

The way I see it, though, the use of pejoratives is in part due to the continued, largely unexamined forms of oppression operating in our society, but also in larger part to the ways in which humans respond to troubles in dating and relationships by blaming and condemning the other. How often, for example, do you see or hear a complicated situation between two people reduced to "he's just an asshole" or "she's just a bitch"? I see it everyday online, and know from experience that it's plenty easy to find in the everyday world we live in. And although I have committed myself to refraining from the easiness of simply blaming the other for everything and condemning him or her, I don't always uphold that vow myself.

However, I do believe that we all have the opportunity to pause and reflect before submitting a comment, blog post, or other form of writing online. And as such, it seems to me that it's worth taking that opportunity to consider the possible impact of your words on others (as well as yourself). For example, I sometimes wonder if the almost continuous blaming of men or women for X,Y, or Z doesn't make it that much harder for those participating in said discussions to see what's actually happening on their dates and in their relationships. Consider that people gravitate towards those who hold similar views to them, and sometimes that simply reinforces habits that are keeping them away from happiness.

Over the winter, for example, I spent a bit of time researching Men's Right's Movement blogs as a counterpoint to various forms of feminism. What was interesting was that although I found myself agreeing with a few of the major points people were saying on these blogs, I also became aware that reading endless streams of comments filled with skewed views of women sometimes to the level of hate speech agitated me. And when I looked at those who were regulars on these blogs, I noticed that they formed a collective front against anyone who disagreed with them on any point. in other words, defense of the status quo vision became more important than any actual discussion and consideration of alternative views. The same sometimes happens on feminist blogs and forums, and I think it can happen with dating and relationship blogs and forums.

At the end of the day, most of us truly want to be happy, and that often includes having a loving, caring partner in our lives. And I'd argue that the vast majority of writing and comments about dating and relationships are coming from that impulse, no matter how twisted and messed up they might be. So, it's worth remembering that when responding to someone else. As is the fact that no one is perfect, and everyone gets frustrated to the point of blaming and distorting the truth at times.

However, one of the main intentions I had in starting this blog is to examine ways to have fully conscious relationships. To promote ways in which people can become more self aware, and also more aware of what's actually happening with their dates and/or partners, and within the relationships as a whole. Languaging plays a role in all of this, because our words help shape our worldview, whether we like it or not.

*painting by Francis Bacon

Questioning Dating Perferences

2011-09-04T16:27:00.000-07:00

I think it is ok to choose or reject any sexual or romantic partner for literally ANY reason. If a person wants to only date within their own race or they want only partners with no bisexuality in their past, or no history of mental illness or addiction, they can pick based on any factors they want. Sexual choices are not a realm where “equal opportunity” needs to be applied.

This is from a commenter on a post about "deal breakers" from the feminist blog Feministe. It's the kind of statement that sounds really empowering to people, however, it's also something that needs further examination.

If you take a close look at dating preferences, they are gateways into the kinds of biases and prejudices that, when considered collectively, form the myriad of oppressions found in our society.

Having dated bisexual women in the past, as well as having bisexual male and female friends, I'm well aware of the social stigmas that bisexual folks suffer from. This, not only amongst heterosexuals, but also amongst the gay and lesbian community. Unfortunately, it's often the case that when people say they don't want to date someone who is interested in, or has a history of, dating across gender - they are operating from stereotypes and biases. They assume, for example, that bisexuality is just an excuse to be promiscuous. Or that it's about a person not being "mature enough" or "healthy enough" to "pick a side and stay there." These kinds of assumptions are really commonplace tropes that operate on an almost unconscious level for most people. Even hearing the word "bisexual" conjures up all kinds of deviant stuff. But beyond that, I believe one of the biggest stinging points of the narrative is the idea that bisexual folks can't commit, that they'd never be committed partners and thus should be rejected out of hand.

Dating within one's own race is, perhaps, more complicated. Race, itself, is such a muddy landscape. On the one hand, it's a fluid social construct with no inherent biological meaning or fixedness, which is contrary to how people tend to popularly understand it. On the other hand, as a social construct, race has a deep and cutting impact on nearly every aspect of human life. So, it's not surprising that it enters heavily into dating preferences, to the point where acceptance or rejection of someone might come down solely to race.

The problems with dating racial preferences are similar to problems I mentioned above with bisexuality. They tend to be unexamined, and they also tend to rely on stereotypes and biases. For example, I have heard college-educated white folks say things like "I don't date black people because we don't have anything in common." When you push a little on the "in common" part, what often comes up are comments about educational background and interests supposedly related to said educational background. And in bringing up educational background, there's also an implied assumption of intelligence difference occurring, taping into the old white supremacist intelligence narratives.

However, when it comes to race and dating preferences, it's much more than just about individual conscious or unconscious racism and stereotypes. An additional challenge, I believe, is that racial dating preferences tend to be strongly upheld and reinforced by one's family, friends, and even the community(s) a person lives in. In fact, sometimes people end up rejecting someone of a different racial background not because of their own preferences, but due to the social pressures of those around them. The fact that I am white played into the disintegration of a relationship I had last year with a woman from Burma. Her family simply couldn't believe that a white man would want to be a committed partner to an Asian woman. To them, white men were mostly sexually promiscuous and unfaithful. In addition, having spent many years living in Thailand, they probably witnessed enough "sexual tourism" and white male privilege around Asian women to create a lot of skepticism towards us in general. Yet, in my case, they were wrong. And both I and my former girlfriend suffered as a result.

I bring these two preference examples up not to suggest that everyone should be "open" to dating everyone. That's ridiculous. You should date who you find attractive and believe might be a good partner for you. However, in bringing up these two examples, I'm suggesting that it's worth really examining your dating preferences because some of them might be blocking you from finding a great partner. And furthermore, the world is crying out for more conscious people less given to easy biases and prejudice.

And you, actually, the list of preferences that could be re-examined is long. Here are some more that I think need to be given a closer look:

1. Body weight

2. Desiring "masculine" men or "feminine" women

3. Hair color - especially the whole "blonde" thing

4. Sexual organ size

5. Sound of someone's voice

6. Physical disabilities

Again, just so that no-one gets all wound in a bunch, this post isn't about shaming people into dating anyone and everyone, or trying to be attracted to people they aren't, for whatever reason, attracted to. It's about sparking curiosity about something that people often consider to be fairly fixed and personal - dating preferences. Which I'm arguing is neither fixed, nor entirely personal.

So, what do you think? Do you feel preferences are entirely personal? Have you had experiences that made you reconsider a previous preference?

First Impressions are Overrated

2011-09-02T09:03:00.000-07:00

There. I said it. First impressions are overrated. Now that's twice. However, there's a catch.

What we choose to focus on when first meeting someone makes all the difference. In other words, because people often pay attention to the flash during first encounters, what they glean is kind of useless. This is why the whole focus on "chemistry" above all else approach to dating is big trouble. Because wanting hot attraction with someone who is a stranger nearly always leads to overlooking the more subtle aspects of the other person. Which leads you to overrate your connection, and overrate the potential for a relationship to really work over the long run.

A few years ago, I had a brief fling with a woman who, when we first met, I thought was a good match. We had a magnetic kind of attraction. She was smart. Funny. Shared a lot of common interests with me. Etc. All those base-level things people ramble on about wanting in their online dating profiles. I went into subsequent dates with her having focused on those elements, and thus failed to notice - for a little while - the rest of the picture. That she was emotionally all over the place. That she was controlling. That she wasn't terribly kind or willing to listen to opinions that were different from her own. And that she really didn't have any passion around social issues or life's big questions.

As this other side of her unfolded before me, for a short time I justified staying with her because I was blinded by the physical attraction, and also placed too much importance on common interests that actually wound up to be superficial connections. Both liking poetry a lot didn't really matter. Liking similar music really didn't matter. An interest in travel really didn't matter. Both working in the non-profit field really didn't matter. That last one, I think, fooled me into believing she was someone who thrived on helping others, and giving back to the community. When the reality was that it was just another job for her.

But that's what happens when your focus is on the more superficial aspects of life and relationships. You hear something that sounds like a connection, and then in your mind turn it into a "deep connection," an oh my god this person is my soul mate kind of connection. It's pretty silly if you think about it, and I don't know anyone who hasn't done a bit of this in their lives. However, for some people, this mode of operation is the only one they ever do.

When you choose to focus on the more subtle, but I'd argue deeper aspects of a person in the beginning, it's much more likely that a first impression will be more useful. Here are some things I look for, just to give some examples:

Good listening skills.

Basic Kindness.

A sense of compassion. Like if she's describing a difficult situation at work, what do the comments about particular co-workers sound like? How much blame and criticism is directed at any particular person?

Values compatibility. For example, as I hinted at above, it's really important to me to be with someone who cares about social issues, and feels compelled to do something that might make the world a better place. In other words, social engagement. Like volunteer in the community. Or be involved in a lobbying effort on a particular issue. If someone has no interest in social engagement on some level, then I might not be a good match for that person. So, it's really important to figure out what values you have, which ones are deal breakers, and then to pay attention to what values the other person seems to be displaying. This is one of those areas that can unfold pretty slowly, and is why the rushed dating culture that has developed in recent decades is kind of troubling.

Sense of humor. This one might seem shallow, but actually I think it's pretty key. People who can't laugh at life, at least a little bit, are pretty miserable partners. (Unless you also have no sense of humor, in which case, misery loves company, right? :)

Breadth of interests. Although I still lean towards dating someone who likes similar things as I do, what I have realized is more important is that the person have a wide variety of interests. A well-roundedness. Which leads to the last quality I look for.

An openness to lifelong learning. Wanting to keep learning about life and world is pretty sexy to me. And I also think that it demonstrates an openness and flexibility that spills over into other areas as well.

So, what do you think?

Jaded About Dating

2011-08-31T09:13:00.000-07:00

Go read a few dating blogs or discussion group conversations. Or check in with enough of your single friends and you're bound to find it: jadedness.

Maybe you are like I have been during periods in the past, and don't need to go looking for it because you're living and breathing the stuff. Every date conversation reminds you of the last one you had. Every short term relationship falls apart in the same old ways. Everywhere you turn, you see seemingly happy couples strolling arm in arm. And you think: this isn't going to happen to me. In fact, maybe it's not even happening to them. They're happy now, but will be yelling at each other by nightfall, and breaking up before the rooster calls in the sunrise.

I don't know about you, but the older I get, the easier it is to construct those kinds of narratives. After the hundredth date with a stranger met online, the veneer of novelty and potential wears off and you're left with reality. After the third, fourth, fifth long term relationship has gone down in flames, or fizzled out, or sputtered slowly into boredom and indifference it's that much harder to shrug it all off and move on with a fresh, open attitude.

So, you have to be more intentional about it all. You have to pay attention to the stories coming up in your mind, and be willing to cut off the jadedness, and cut off the desire to compare whomever is in front of you with all those you dated in the past.

Whether you know it or not, jadedness and similar states of mind are really addictive. They offer a buffer between reality as it is and yourself. Instead of just taking in completely the place you are at in life, you wallow in stories about how all the good ones are taken already, and that even if you meet someone great, you or the other person will figure out how to fuck it up somehow.

Jadedness frequently has a fatalism attached to it. But even thinking fatalistic offers a perverse comfort because you believe you know what's coming, instead of facing the mystery of your life.

I'm thoroughly convinced that although it can be more challenging to meet a great partner when you've gone past 30, 40, 50 years old - it's also the case that you tend to have much more wisdom about it all, if only you'd peel back the bullshit stories on the surface. The experiences of your past are rich in learnings, and even if you didn't choose to learn from them at the time, you can always go back now and reconsider what lessons might have been present for you. In addition, perhaps you've also let go of some of that movie/television show romanticism that tinted the way you viewed dating and relationships as a young person.

In other words, even if you have some baggage, you also might have a lot of assets hanging around within you, if you just take a closer look. In fact, if you've been an expert in jadedness, it might have worn through some of that emotional roller coaster stuff that others experience with every single date they go on. Maybe it's not life or death anymore. Or you don't think this person "is the one" after a few e-mails and phone calls, and then, when he or she isn't, you don't crash and burn for weeks on end after the date.

In the end, it's all workable. If you're willing to keep taking another look, and let go of whatever comfort stories keep coming up in your mind.

Online Dating: Women and First Contact

2011-08-29T16:29:00.001-07:00

I know I have a rule about not talking in real time about dating. But what I'm going to share is pretty general, but relevant enough to this blog to make for a decent post.

So, those who have read the blog for awhile know that I'm all about flexing gender roles. Doing something simply because I'm supposed to as a man, or expecting a woman to do something simply because she's a woman, just doesn't fly with me.

Well, I have had a recent flood of women sending first contact e-mails on my dating profiles. Before anyone gets too excited about this news, I have to say that the majority of them were women who I would have never contacted. In fact, it's hard to say what exactly drew two of them to write me, since we had nearly nothing in common. However, it was refreshing none the less. Nice to not be the one for a change composing the first e-mails and then wondering if any response would ever come.

For the record, I responded to everyone. One woman seemed a little too intent to meet me, suggesting we could still be "friends" after I said I didn't think we were a good match. Now, had we gone on a date and just not clicked romantically, I certainly would have been open to something like that. But responding "let's be friends then" to a two line rejection e-mail from a stranger seems a little off to me somehow. Especially given that I wasn't sure if we'd even have much to talk about, given the wide differences in our profiles.

Overall, though, I was glad to be on the other end of the contact equation. Perhaps more women are realizing that given how many of us are doing online dating these days, just sitting back and waiting for the inbox to fill might not cut it anymore.

A Little Secret About Being Single

2011-08-26T09:51:00.000-07:00

I'll let you in on a little secret: it doesn't matter really if you are single or partnered. It really doesn't.

You might think your life depends on finding that special someone. You might wake up in the middle of the night after a nightmare about growing old in your house full of cats. You might wake up from the dream embrace of some hot someone and shout "Damn!" at the top of your lungs, waking your neighbors again. You might find yourself having heart palpitations or choking fits after seeing the fiftieth lovey-dovey couple walking down the street past you. You might have read studies that suggest single people are "less healthy" than partnered folks, or that single people live shorter lives, and think your doomed. You might ...

And that's the point. It's goes on and on like this, as long as you let it. The best partnered people tend to be people who are also great at being alone. Being themselves alone. Enjoying themselves as they are.

There's your pep talk for the week, single folks! Now get out there and be fine with your bad self. By yourself. And just maybe, all that shine and positive energy will draw that special someone right to you.

Endless Evidence Gathering

2011-08-23T09:03:00.000-07:00

A comment on a post over at Evan Marc Katz's blog got me thinking. Jennifer writes:

It seems like women often feel they need to gather overwhelming evidence or catch their boyfriend red-handed in order to leave him. Here’s my thought: If he’s making you uncomfortable, and he doesn’t care, it’s okay to leave. You don’t have to work so hard to justify it.

Although this is citing behavior around suspected cheating, I actually think that this issue of overdoing evidence gathering is applied to a lot of rocky relationships. And men do it as well, although I do wonder if the crooked gender socialization many of us have grown up with has made it easier for men to leave relationships where they are unhappy. I'm not sure about that one, but it's an interesting thing to consider.

In my opinion, people tend to operate within a binary. Specifically, you have those who cut and run the moment things get difficult. And then you have those who spend months, years, even entire lifetimes sticking it out with partners that they slowly grow to hate, but can't quite leave.

In my 20s, I was an endless evidence gatherer. In fact, that even was true with women who I never dated. I recall one in particular who demonstrated a bit of interest a few times, but then didn't really respond to my "let's get together sometime" kind of comments. I sat around for weeks, rethinking the conversations we had had. Did that look mean she was interested? She really liked the poems I had written. That must be a sign. But she didn't want to get a drink with me? Is she a recovering alcoholic? Should I ask her about that? The questions were endless, as was the tallying. All for a woman who probably thought of me as some nice guy she had a few conversations with, and that's about it.

I have had to train myself to cut off the evidence gathering mind. To know when enough information is enough, and when it's time to make a decision. You have to learn, for example, how your mind rationalizes the poor behavioral patterns of a partner, or the ways in which you discount or marginalize your own needs in a relationship as a way to keep the peace. Or out of a fear of losing the person. The biggest problem with much of the evidence gathering we do in relationships is that it's not about seeing the situation clearly, and then noting the patterns that are occurring. When you fear loosing a partner, or constantly discount your needs, everything ends up having an emotional tint that blurs the truth, and makes it that much harder to make level-headed decisions. You stay when you should leave. Or you leave when you should stay. And then wonder why you're constantly miserable.

When it comes to those of us who have challenges with leaving, it's really important to remember that you don't have to justify everything. You don't have to have reasons for every last thing you don't like about the relationship, nor do you have to explain all of that to the other person. Offering some of that to the other person, especially if you've been together a long time, is probably a kind thing to do. However, if somewhere in your mind you believe that you have to explain your way completely out of a relationship, then what you have built is a prison, not a relationship.

Finding a balance between kindness to yourself and kindness to your partner (or ex-partner) is really the key to doing relationships consciously. And knowing that this will look different with each relationship - that what's kind in one situation might be cruel in another - is also important.

Anyone out there have trouble with endless evidence gathering? Or are you the opposite?

Has Social Media Messed Up Intimate Relationships?

2011-08-22T08:52:00.001-07:00

Over at the blog Notes from the Dating Trenches, there is a good post about sharing, boundaries, and social media. Kelly writes:

There have been a few articles lately on the effect social media is having on us in terms of over-sharing. I just read one on Yahoo! about how one man’s tweet about a bad date caused hundreds of people to respond and share their own, obviously worse, stories. Like a competition. One woman said that when she showed up for her date the man asked her to go home and change because he didn’t like what she was wearing. Another man said he was freaked out because his date brought 25 photos of Sylvia Plath’s gravesite as a conversation starter (she sounds like a treat). Another admitted to accidentally pushing his date down the stairs. The man who started the tweet-a-thon was surprised, noting: “People don’t mind recounting things that in a previous age would have been considered deeply personal.” I’m sure he got over it though since he gained 5,000 followers.

Like Kelly, I'm troubled by the ways social media are sometimes used in the context of intimate relationships. It seems to me that the lines between public and private have become quite blurry, sometimes to the point where people are willing to subject their entire relationships to public scrutiny (like on these reality dating competition TV shows.) One of the major problems with this is that every little high experienced, as well as every mistake made, is both magnified and amplified. You tweet your first kiss to a thousand "friends" and receive several dozen virtual high fives in a matter of hours. Or you write about your latest fight on Facebook and have dozens of sympathizers calling your partner all sorts of names and telling you to get rid of him or her.

How is it possible to develop and maintain a clear and realistic assessment of your relationship amidst all of this?

Furthermore, how is it possible to stand on your own two feet, and make your own decisions about your partnership when you have dozens of other voices nearly instantly appearing in your head to compete with whatever your gut is telling you?

So, here are a few guidelines I have for myself, which might be helpful for you as well.

1. Don't share current relationship conflict on social media. If I want to talk about current struggles with others online, I might head to one of the numerous dating and relationship sites. I have a list of excellent ones on the sidebar of this blog.

And I'd be more than willing to host letters or write about questions readers have about current conflicts/challenges.

The main point in this is to aim towards minimizing harm, while also supporting the need to work through issues with others.

2. I don't have a relationship status on Facebook. Early on, I did change my relationship status a few times, and found that it just led to confusion and having to tell people stories about very short term relationships that really didn't need to be told. Dating someone for 3 or 4 weeks doesn't need to be highly publicized, nor does the end of that connection.

3. I have steered this blog away from "real-time" intimate relationships. Perhaps there might be some reason to break that rule in the future, but for now, I think it's a smart decision that also upholds point #1.

How about you? How do you handle social media and your intimate relationships?

Interracial Dating and Relationships II

2011-08-20T08:56:00.001-07:00

The following quote from a woman named Holly, part of a panel of Asian-Americans discussing dating and relationships, speaks a lot to some of the underlying challenges that face many interracial relationships:

The liberal-multi-culti facade of all interracial relationships being cool was torn up a little bit when my sister started dating black guys, however. There was a lot more disapproval and “what does he want to do with his life,” which I’m sure could be attributed to class differences as well. Come to think of it, they did raise similar objections to a white guy she dated who was a slacker musician without much of a “future.” When I put it all together in my memory, the message we received was holistically about fitting people into a nice, harmonious middle-class liberal picture of diversity where everyone basically ought to want the same thing: college, a career, a nice home, stability, marriage, kids, family closeness, etc.

Now, I think it's very true that wide differences around life goals, educational pursuits, and some of the other things listed here are major challenges to the success of any relationship. However, there's something more going on here.

I can recall a few female family members, both young white women, getting a lot of flack for "dating black men." And I don't think it really mattered much who these guys were, what they wanted out of life, or how they treated their partners. Their race trumped everything else, which obviously points to the various negative stereotypes that have hounded young African-American men for decades, even centuries to some degree.

Another example of this comes from my own experience. One of the reasons the relationship I cited in yesterday's post broke up was due to stereotypes some of her family members about white men. Specifically, they believed that a white man would never commit to, and marry an Asian woman. Again, it didn't matter how well I treated her, nor all the other things I did in my life that demonstrated commitment and loyalty - those family members, including her mother, read me by race. They certainly liked me well enough, but because I was white, they couldn't quite trust me.

When I hear people spout nonsense like "we live in a post-racial world" - a fairly common refrain amongst liberal white folks following President Obama's election - these kinds of situations come to mind. (Many other things come to mind as well, like racially charged police beatings, redlining, the wealth gap as broken down by racial groups, airport profiling, and immigration policies, just to name a few.) But with dating and relationships, at least in the U.S., we are at an interesting crossroads, as more and more people are crossing racial lines to find partners, and yet are living in a country where racism and racial prejudice are still fairly powerful players.

And yet, people of different racial/ethnic backgrounds still manage to fall in love and build lives together. Lots of people. Sometimes, I think that's kind of amazing. Other times, it just seems normal - you know - like the most natural thing in the world - loving another.

Interracial Dating and Relationships I

2011-08-18T09:44:00.001-07:00

Interracial dating and relationships are extremely interesting to me for a variety of reasons. Given my own dating history, there is a personal angle. However, I also believe that these kinds of pairings often bring up some of the most challenging social issues around, including the following: white privilege and racism, cultural differences, economic class and classism, differences in understanding gender, and sometimes vast differences in family of origin expectations and assumptions. At the same time, some people manage to have vibrant, long term and even lifelong partnerships with another across the racial spectrum.

If you've been with me since the beginning of this blog, you might remember the post that started it all about the sometimes amazing, but ultimately doomed relationship I had last year with a woman originally from Burma. Many of the issues I listed above came into play during that relationship, and yet at the same time, had a few things been different, we might be together and quite happy today.

I'm well aware of the fact that many folks today, probably the majority of folks today, continue to view only members of their own racial/ethnic background as potential partners. Obviously, there are complex reasons behind this truth, but it's something that I have personally never felt. Even as a young teenager, my early crushes were across racial lines. I remember in particular really liking a cute African-American classmate who frequently complimented and smiled at me in our computer class. (That was back when I actually knew something about computer programming.) Being ever the shy boy, I struggled to muster the courage to call her and "ask her out," and when I finally did, her older sister answered, wondering who I was. The fact that she wasn't home, and that this older sister seemed suspicious in an older sister kind of way threw me completely off. I can't recall what I said, but I basically chickened out on the whole thing and nothing ever happened between us. Such is the life of an introverted 13 year old.

Anyway, I am excited to see that the blog Racialicious is doing a series of posts on interracial dating. I hope to take up some of the posts to consider here a little more closely.

If you have any experiences or insights to share, feel free to comment.

Snooping on a Partner

2011-08-17T09:20:00.000-07:00

I seem to be running into the issue of snooping on partners all over the place these days. Some of it is coming from real suspicions that the partner is cheating, hiding an addiction, or some other critical piece of information. Some of it seems to stem from accidental discoveries that lead to questions and doubts. However, I kind of view all snooping in the end, as a result of flimsy trust.

Specifically, when someone snoops around, it’s because they don’t trust the relationship as it is.

Now, it might be very valid not to trust the relationship as it is, as in the case of being with someone trying to hide adultery. Maybe there has been a significant change in your partner's behavior, or perhaps something has always felt "off," but you were too busy before riding the honeymoon hormone high to address it.

But I don’t think people choose to snoop on their partners and also have total trust in the relationship. The two seem mutually exclusive to me.

Say you're on your partner's Facebook page and you see a comment from an Ex-girlfriend or boyfriend to your partner that appears to be flirtatious. The "seeing" of that comment itself is just that - seeing the comment. However, then your mind starts spinning based upon who made it, and the words said. Before you know it, you've followed the trail of comments between the two for the past six months, telling yourself that "you just want to make sure nothing is up."

This kind of behavior is probably pretty common. Odds are that very few people have made it through the early years of a relationship - when trust is still developing - without having some sense of mistrust or doubt arise. And a lot of us act on that mistrust or doubts in little ways that cross the line into snooping for evidence that our partner either loves and is committed to us, or is lying and not committed to us.

When I look back at my own relationship history, there hasn't been much actual snooping. I'm not given to jealousy or suspicions due to insecurity or poor self esteem. However, I have certainly had periods in relationships where doubt and lack of trust pervaded. And I can even think of a few times during one relationship where that manifested in searching for evidence that my girlfriend actually loved me. Like fishing for comments from her friends about us, or paying attention to just how much attention and affection she was giving me.

Thinking back on that, it's an interesting reversal of the kinds of fears and snooping I've been hearing about, and reading about recently. While the recent examples have nearly all been of people looking for evidence of a partner's negative behavior, I was searching for the positive.

It makes me think that personal history plays a large role in the ways that lack of trust show up. Since I have never been cheated on (at least that I know of anyway), fears and suspicions about that kind of thing just don't surface for me. However, I have had my share of partners that, for various reasons, who demonstrated very inconsistent levels of affection and attention towards me. And so I'm more predisposed to feeling doubts when a partner's behavior is more distant - sometimes even if there are good reasons for it, such as they've been really busy at work or dealing with a family crisis that's sucking up a lot of energy and time.

Regardless of how it manifests though, "searching for evidence" behind a partner's back is a demonstration of weakened trust in the relationship as it is. That isn't a judgment - it's an observation. Because sometimes that weakened trust is weakened for a very good reason. And other times, it's simply a call to take a deeper look at yourself.

Over-Thinking Relationships

2011-08-15T07:16:00.000-07:00

Over at Baggage Reclaim, Natalie has a fine post on overthinking and it's impact on relationships. This particular paragraph, early on in the piece, was really striking:

I have a friend who spent over a decade (yes you read that correctly) ruminating on her relationship. Every time we caught up about what was going on, she was trying to “work things out” or “figuring things out” or “deciding what the best thing to do is” and even “trying to avoid making a mistake”.

Having done some of this myself, I totally know how you can fall down that rabbit hole. Part of me knew six months into my first long term relationship that we were a poor match, but I didn't have the experience and insight yet to overcome the fear of ending it and being alone. We stayed together over three years.

I have also been on the other side of this equation. Another long term girlfriend, instead of breaking up with me fully, asked for a month a part so she could "think about things." That seemed reasonable enough to me, and I wanted to give it one last shot myself, even though the previous several months had been fairly miserable. Then that month stretched into two, three, four, five months, with all of my attempts to meet her to have a conversation rebuffed. Finally, I just gave up, and moved on. And found out later that she had moved on long before I did, but for whatever reason, decided to keep answering my requests to meet with "I'm not ready to see you yet," instead of just telling me she was seeing someone else.

You might think that this example demonstrates something else, and not "over-thinking," but those several months previous had been filled with her thinking about and reconsidering things. As well as some of my own. And it's also the case that she did spend the first month or two after the "break up" thinking about what to do before fully entering into the new relationship.

I'm all for thoughtfulness and spending the time needed to suss out what you really want and how you want to move forward. However, there comes a time when that place becomes like a cave you go to hide in. A protective zone from all the possible consequences you can imagine. Consequences from leaving someone. Consequences from staying with someone. And eventually, the consequences that come from waiting too long to make a decision.

How about you? Are you someone who over-thinks your relationships? Do you sit on the fence for weeks and months on end, wondering about the many what ifs? Have you dated people like this?

Why Do You Want to Be in a Relationship?

2011-08-12T18:26:00.001-07:00

You know, I think most everyone has stock answers to the question I have titled this post with. Things like:

I want to have a family.

I want to be loved and cared for.

I want someone to travel with, share experiences with, etc.

And of course, all of those are fine. But perhaps beneath those also lurk these:

I am afraid of being alone.

It's more financially secure with two people sharing the bills.

I'm not sure I'm loveable if someone isn't in my life.

I'm supposed to get marriage and have children, isn't that what everyone does?

Life isn't meaningful without a partner.

If I look back at my own life, I'd say I have had, at some time or another, most of these "negative" narratives driving my desire to be in a relationship. And because of that, I sometimes made choices both within relationships and between relationships out of fear, and not from an authentic sense of who I am and what I really want out of my life.

In addition, if you look at those first three - the "positive" narratives - they aren't all that specific, nor are they terribly deep-level either. Let's take each of them and ask a few probing questions.

1. I want to have a family. Why? What is it about being in a partnership and having children that you find compelling? What beneficial qualities would you bring such a partnership? What beneficial qualities would be helpful for a partner to have in such a relationship with you? Could you have a great life without children, or do you feel called to be a parent in this lifetime?

2. I want to be loved and cared for. How? In what ways could a partner do this for you? Do you love and care for yourself already? (If not, you might find yourself in a world of disappointment when your partner proves to be human.) How might you love and care for your partner in a relationship?

3. I want someone to travel with, share experiences with, etc. Have you traveled alone before? How are your friendships or relationships with family members? Are you merely hoping to find someone to fill the vacuum of a social life you currently have? What kinds of experiences do you wish to share with an intimate partner and why?

This kind of questioning may irritate some of you. However, I'm kind of convinced that the way towards a healthy, conscious relationship is through such questioning and self-examination. And once you are with someone, through "together examination." The thing is, though, that this is not about finding a new set of pat answers to a list of questions. It's more about allowing yourself - or yourselves - to experiment. To live with questions for awhile. To offer answers that feel the most true, while knowing that they are provisional - i.e. true within a given context, which might change in the future. Some partners have a deep passion for travel together for years, and then, as other things shift in their lives, one or both find that yesterday's travel is today's business project developed together.

So, why do you want to be in a relationship?

Because They're Not Getting Married

2011-08-11T06:45:00.000-07:00

Yue Xu over at Singlefied is asking her fellow bloggers to spread the word about a wedding dress she recently found for an extraordinary inexpensive price, and is hoping to give away to someone who really could use it. Here are the details.

Listen, I’m a single gal and though I see a wedding in my future, it’s not in the near future. I have no use for this beautiful dress. Not to mention that it’s taking up room in my tiny studio. And hello, how scary would it be to bring a guy over with a wedding gown hanging outside my closet?! So, I would love to give it to someone more deserving. Maybe you have a wedding coming up and haven’t budgeted enough for a dress, or you want to dye it and turn it into your dream prom dress, I want to hear about it. Contact me (below) and tell me your story by 10/1/11, and I will choose one person to ship the dress to.

If you know of anyone who might be interested, drop Yue a line on her blog. Also, I encourage people to go read the story behind her getting the dress - it's quite fun.

Speaking of weddings, or non-weddings, I saw a movie the other day - Away We Go - where the issue of marriage seemed quite prominent. Specifically, what I found interesting was how the woman of the main couple in the movie repeatedly turned down her boyfriend's proposals for marriage. And she's doing this as she's pregnant with their first child.

Now, there's never any sense that this couple is in trouble. That they aren't committed to each other. In fact, as the movie goes on, it becomes quite clear the filmmaker wants us to view them as "the happy ones" amongst others who are struggling, miserable, or otherwise dysfunctional. The New York Times review I linked to is quite scathing of the film's depiction, and while I agreed with some of it, I found something refreshing in featuring a healthy couple that doesn't fit the standard narrative.

However, I also found this from near the end of the Time review compelling as well:

Really, “Away We Go” is about the flight from adulthood, from engagement, from responsibility, even as it cleverly disguises itself as a search for all those things. But the dream of being left alone in a world of your own making, far from anything sad or icky or difficult, is a child’s fantasy. Not an unattractive or uncommon one, it must be said, and for that reason it is tempting to follow Burt and Verona into the precious, hermetic paradise that awaits them at the end of the road.

Given the idyllic isolation of the home the couple chooses to settle and start their family in, far away from the troubles of their friends and family, I'm inclined to agree. And yet as a writer on modern relationships, and supportive of alternative models of being together, I also detect a strong whiff of conservatism in the reviewer's tone. And I can't help but wonder had this couple been "happily married" and about to have their first child, as is often the case in mainstream feel-good movies, if the review would have been a bit more "feel good" itself.

Being Really Smart Can Work Against You, Especially if You're a Woman

2011-08-09T16:41:00.000-07:00

Let's face it. A lot of people say they want to date someone who is intelligent, right? Or at least someone who can have a decent conversation, knows something about a few things in the world besides their favorite sports team, celebrity gossip magazine, or TV show. But when push comes to shove, this desire for intelligence is often only true as long as said person isn't "too smart."

Take this post, by an African-American woman with a PhD. About her current (or maybe now ex-boyfriend), she writes:

Recently, my romantic interested accused me of throwing my Ph.D. in his face. Most Black women with Ph.D.’s will know exactly how egregious an accusation that is, especially since we are hypersensitive and overly vigilant about making sure never to “throw our degrees” in the face of less-accomplished potential boos or family members.

During a casual phone convo about our respective college experiences, Dude who is a high school math teacher and has a couple of advanced degrees in math fields remarked to me that he found most humanities/ social science majors, including English and Political Science—my undergrad majors—“illegitimate.” Now given that all of my degrees are in humanities fields, I was majorly incensed.

And although I’m tired of used to –and normally unphased by– these inanely conceived verbal jousting matches that dudes engage highly educated women in in order to see if we are really as smart as our degrees seem to indicate, this time I was pissed.

She goes on to detail some of the ways that patriarchy and male privilege play a role in the frequent testing and questioning of female intelligence, and how women with advanced degrees sometimes struggle to find partners who will embrace them completely, intelligence and all. It's a pretty compelling post overall, touching on race, gender, traditional gender roles, higher education, and a whole swarm of other issues.

And I have to say that, even as a white man, someone with a lot of privilege, I have been nailed by the "too smart for my own good" bug. It has impacted my dating life in sometimes strange ways. When I was younger, I seemed to attract older women in wrecks of marriages who loved the fact that I could keep up with them intellectually, without also turning everything into a nasty debate. I also recall going a few dates with a woman over the past winter who had dropped out of college years ago, having questioned the value of pursuing a degree. This is something I totally resonated with, even though I have a Masters Degree, and thought it might be a great point of convergence for us. However, even as I spoke about how I'm not really into the academic world, and how I have learned as much and probably more outside of academia, she seemed to be fixated on the difference in formal education we had. So much so that she started employing tests of her own to see if I was "bullshitting" her.

"Oh, you know about Jack Kerouac, eh? What do you know about Jack Kerouac?"

(For some reason, his name came up and I said something about his well known novel On the Road. You might say the situation was ripe for such questioning. I mean, mentioning having read that novel is almost a cliche amongst some groups of folks.)

Anyway, I started talking about having visited an exhibit at a local art museum where the original manuscript of On the Road had been featured amongst other Beat Generation writer artifacts. Which led into how I actually think that Kerouac had better novels than On the Road, including the Dharma Bums, which led into mentioning my Zen meditation practice. All of that happened over the span of maybe three or four minutes, and once I landed on Zen, she was interested in sharing some stories about her time in a Zen monastery.

But I think the speed of associations that come out of my mouth at times still intimidated her because over the rest of that night, and during the next date, she kept speaking about how her memory wasn't as good as mine, and also making sideways comments about "college educated folks" and whatnot. Needless to say, there wasn't a third date.

Now, it's fair to say that some "smart folks" are also plenty arrogant and full of themselves. And certainly anyone who has a pattern of driving dates away through endless displays of "knowledge" and "fact sharing" would do well to take a look at themselves.

However, I don't get the sense that this is what's going on with the PhD woman from the post above, nor with at least some of the women who spoke in the comments section of her post. And while I'm willing to admit I have made mistakes, and/or done a bit of showing off on occasion, flaunting intelligence isn't how I normally operate in the world. One upping others is just another game, and I'm not into games - unless they are games where people are having fun and enjoying themselves together.

What do you make of intelligence and dating? Have you had any negative experiences, either as the "intelligent one" or as someone being talked down to by a "smarty pants"?

p.s. The song above is just for fun. Enjoy :)

First Date Sex

2011-08-08T09:20:00.000-07:00

There's a good article over at The Good Men Project considering the question of sex on the first date. The author surveyed people amongst her Facebook cohort, and got a lot of interesting feedback on why people do and don't have sex on first dates. Some of the reasons are worth looking at a little more closely.

1. Slut-shaming. This is one of those gender based double-standards. Simply put, men still get away with having more sex with more partners without it having a negative effect on their overall reputation. Women, wrongly I think, are in the position of never knowing if having sex early on with a date will destroy their chances with him. Or if others will judge her for doing so, including other women.

2. Testing "chemistry." One of the reasons people cite for actually doing it on a first date (or really early on in a relationship) is out of a desire to see if they are sexually compatible. I'll admit that I have done this before. It may have not been the only reason, but it certainly was one of them. As I have gotten older, though, I'm less inclined to rush into sexual intimacy - especially with someone I don't know. The last few relationships I have had were with women I'd been friends with beforehand, so you might say that the timeline played out a lot slower in those cases. Earlier this summer, I dated a woman for about six weeks and we were quite open with each other about our views about sexual intimacy, but also chose to wait. And when I decided that I felt the connection we had was more friendship than intimate partners, she agreed, and was glad that we hadn't had sex. As was I.

3. Conversations about boundaries and preferences. Emily Moss, the author of the post, points out that early on, it's really difficult for people to have honest, open conservations about their sexual boundaries and/or preferences. Of course, some people don't really have a good idea about any of this stuff, and simply plod along sexually. However, for many of us, it's more about having enough trust established to expose ourselves in such a way. That trust simply isn't there when you start out. You might feel something like trust right from the beginning, but deep-level trust takes time to develop.

4. Don't want to deal with potential "messes." The one time I truly slept with a stranger, a woman I met online about three years ago, the few days after were filled with "now what?" and "why did I do that?" kinds of questions. The reality was that I had been single several months, and she was enjoying "being casual." But I really didn't want a relationship with her, nor was I even sure I wanted to hang out with her again. And I worried she wanted more, even if that more was just someone casual or short term.

After a few days, I wrote her and said I had a good time, but didn't think we were a good match. Maybe she was just fine with it, but I felt like a slug. And that situation was a great reminder to me that I'm not built for casual sex, nor casual relationships.

What are your thoughts about first date sex? Have they changed as you have gotten older?

*Image

Allegory of Lust
Agnolo Bronzino
1540-1550
Oil on panel, 146.5 x 116.8 cm
London, National Gallery

Yesterday's Taboo, Today's Trend, Tomorrow's "Traditional"

2011-08-07T10:15:00.000-07:00

Portrait of French King Louis XV as a child, ca. 1710

Although it might not appear to be the case, life IS always changing. And as such, the ways in which we have relationships with each other are also frequently on the move. Not too long ago here in the U.S., it was essentially taboo to even speak of something called "Gay Marriage." Today, same sex couples are legally getting married in certain states, as it slowly moves towards becoming a national trend. Not too long ago, it was quite common for wives to be considered part of their husbands' property, with little or no rights of their own within a marriage. Today, that's basically taboo talk.

In the last post, I considered the value of having role flexibility within our intimate relationships. In this post, I'll look at an old philosophical debate that underpins - whether you know it or not - a lot of our thinking around gender, roles, and the ways in which we opt to structure our relationships.

The philosophical debate is the old nature/nurture question. When you hear someone say "Men are hardwired to do X, Women to do y," that's the "nature" side of the coin. When you hear someone say "Women have been socialized to believe X, and men Y," that's the nurture side of the coin. Although it's probably true that the vast majority of us think it's some mixture of the two sides that builds a person's life, it's also the case that we each have our leanings. Some are much more in the nature camp, seeing much of life as fixed and determined by biological and/or other inherited patterns. While others are much more in the nurture camp, seeing socialization and individual and collective choices as driving much of our lives. I think it's important to consider where you fall along the nature/nurture divide, because it can have a really strong impact upon how you both view intimate relationships, and also how you act in them.

The nature/nurture debate has been going on for centuries. In the 17th century, the English philosopher John Locke proposed that the human mind was a blank slate at birth, and that it is almost entirely environmental conditions - such as family, schooling, community, etc. - that determine how a person acts, feels, and thinks in the world. You might say that I lean in this direction, but couldn't possibly believe we are totally empty slates at birth. Biology does play some role.

On the opposite end, a pair of 19th century Scottish scientists, J. Arthur Thomson and Patrick Geddes, claimed that "social, psychological and behavioural traits were caused by metabolic state" built into our bodies. Of course, anyone who knows even a tiny bit about social conditions for women during the 19th century can imagine how such a theory was employed to control and manipulate all kinds of behavior and ways of being.

The contrasting historical views shared above are just two examples of the numerous ways in which people, famous and not so famous, have opined about the ways in which humans are in the world. When it comes to gender differences, no one really knows for sure how much biology actually impact how we think, feel, and behave. And although trends can suggest that, for example, women are more verbal in relationships than men, it's also the case that differences within a particular group frequently are much wider than differences between different groups. In addition, even if we can say that a majority of women are more verbal and talkative then men, it's unclear what's driving that. How much is socialization? How much is biological? How much is something else?

Furthermore, the standard view that we are divided into two - men and women - actually doesn't hold water. The increasing openness and "out" presence of trans, gender queer, intersex, and others who don't fit the binary add to the bonfire of questions I have for those who lean towards biologically determined gender narratives.

A lot of high-minded talk there, eh? I mean, what's this guy getting at you might be thinking?

Well, take a look at the photo above. Specifically, notice the clothing. Looks pretty "girly" doesn't it? However, that was the fashion of the day for young, well off boys. Think about it, yesterday's fashion is today's cross-dressing. And I'd argue that a fair amount of what many of us believe are "natural" gender roles are actually, at least in great part, socially conditioned.

Why does that matter? If something is more socially conditioned than biologically determined, then it can be changed and experimented with. In other words, anyone in theory can do it. So, I'm of the opinion that we should maximize whatever percentage of "nurture" we have in our relationships. Instead of fixating on gender differences, it would behoove us to develop skills in all areas of a relationship, even ones that are not "traditionally" amongst our roles.

So, instead of going along with the idea that, for example, men always initiate first dates or women are the best caregivers for children, we opt instead to experiment, and learn from the results. In my view, being an "experimenter" in one's intimate relationships brings more freedom to be who you really are with each other, and to develop a flexibility that might actually improve the likelihood of a relationship enjoying longevity.

How? Well, I have a few ideas how. Perhaps you have more.

First off, if both members of a partnership have some skills and experience in doing some of the vital roles within the relationship, then when one person's situation changes, then other person can step up or step down as appropriate. There doesn't need to be an equivalence even - maybe one person has weaker general leadership skills, but still has enough experience and know-how to step up in a crisis where the other person can't lead.

Second, there is more of an opportunity for both members of a partnership to develop as fully realized individuals. I think of my grandmother who, after my grandfather died, had to learn how to drive and other many things that she hadn't done much of, if not at all, because of the fixed roles in their relationship. If it had just been driving, well, that wouldn't have been a big deal. But I remember how lost she seemed to feel in those early years after grandpa was gone, not just because of grief, but because she really hadn't learned how to do a lot of things that others would simply take for granted.

Some might argue that this is representative of relationships built before the rise of feminism and the sexual revolution, amongst other things, and to some degree that's true. However, I still think that many relationships are filled with either conscious or unconscious gendered role playing that, when circumstances change, can cause a lot of havoc.) Right now, I'm thinking of the old "indoor/outdoor" divide, and the numerous men who still can't properly clean house or cook a decent meal, or the numerous women who are clueless around cars, power tools, and/or house maintenance.

Third, and finally, - approaching things in this way increased the “shared” quality of the relationship.

What do you think of all of this?

Gender Roles

2011-08-05T10:43:00.000-07:00

I have been thinking a lot about the ways in which people get socialized into believing they must think or act in certain ways, solely due to gender. While there seem to be endless books and articles claiming men and women are wildly different due to some kind of biological "hard-wiring," I think a lot of that is flat out bullshit.

When issues like who makes the lion's share of money, who cooks, who cleans, who initiates sexual intimacy, who takes care of children, who buys groceries, who leads, who follows - when all of that and more is considered fluid, and more in-tune with present conditions, I believe relationships have a better chance of not failing.

This doesn't mean that all roles within a relationship must be fluid and changing all the time. That probably isn't realistic. Perhaps one partner is always in charge of finances, given his or her's skills. And perhaps another is mostly in the lead because the other is less assertive or outgoing.

However, one thing I have always felt is a flawed in holding more fixed roles is that it assumes life will remain mostly the same. Which it doesn't. Even amongst people who do their damnedest to keep it so.

The main breadwinner - often male - looses his job, and the other partner - often female, is forced to step up and fill in the gap, having not been in such a position before.

The financial wizard becomes seriously ill and doesn't have the energy to deal with the couple's bills and money, forcing the other person, who hasn't thought much or at all about such things, to take over.

The person who has been the main sexual initiator in the couple is overworked in other areas of his/hers life, and either feels resentful that he/she has to lead in intimacy, or simply doesn't have the time/energy to think about it.

The main childcare person in a family, often female, grows exhausted trying to cover all the additional roles in her/his life, and either becomes resentful of the needs of the child/children, or lacks the energy and/or health to care decently for the child/children.

Those are just a few examples of what can happen when one person is fixed into a certain role in a relationship. And while we are socially becoming more fluid around gender's role in deciding roles in relationships, it's also still true that views which consider certain roles being more natural for men or for women, or even "more appropriate" for men or for women (which is really just code for the same thing), are commonplace.

In the next post, I'll consider a bit of history around these issues, and expand upon why I think more flexibility and fluidity is a positive in long term, intimate relationships.

Feel free to comment on what you have read so far.

Talkin' Babies

2011-08-04T08:40:00.000-07:00

I found this gem over at the blog Eflirt:

Fail: A few years ago I met this guy while speed dating. We had an awesome, flirty chemistry. On our third date, over dinner in a lovely restaurant, he told me he had done some soul searching and realized he was getting old. (Because 31 = the end of the world.) He wanted to settle down and have a baby. No really, he wanted to actually go back to my place and make a baby that very night.

As a bright sided kind of gal I tried to see this as a compliment, but I wasn’t really sure how to respond. Suddenly, out came a “NO WAY.” He didn’t seem pleased and began screaming at me and pointing at other (apparently more fertile) women whom he later propositioned to bear his child.

And you thought women were the baby crazy ones.

Wow! Not a pretty picture at all.

I have experienced tamer forms of this on dates before. One woman in particular stands out. We had a nice time out on our first date, and she invited me over to her house for the second date. Before your mind gets racing too much, she lived in a shared house with several roommates, a situation that was, now that I think about it, probably not terribly easy on her dating life. Anyway, we're in the kitchen cutting vegetables for the soup we are making together. The subject of having children comes up and she turns to me and says "I want to have a family soon. Actually, I want to have a baby. Yesterday."

Internally, I kind of went "uh oh."

And then I said something about wanting to establish a relationship with the other person before deciding about children. That I don't think rushing to have children is a good idea.

She didn't seemed fazed.

"I just know I want to have children really soon. I can feel the clock ticking. It's time."

She was 31 years old. I get it that the clock starts getting loud in your thirties, but she had almost the whole of her thirties left - hardly at crisis point.

Here's the other thing about that situation that bothered me. The more I talked with her, the more I felt like she was looking for a man to father a child first, and a partner second. Now, maybe that works fine for some people, but to me, it was a total turn off. Just as it was for the woman in the story above.

At the same time, I'm thankful my date said all that really early on. I didn't have to get into a relationship with her, and then find out her main intentions after a few months, when things might have gotten much more complicated.

Exit Interviews

2011-07-31T09:25:00.000-07:00

Over at Simone Grant's dating and relationship blog is a post about having exit interviews with former partners. You might be thinking, what?! But let's read her introduction to the idea first.

Let’s face it, most of us don’t exactly get “closure” when we go through breakups. Sometimes, after much time has passed, it’s hard to even pin point what were the exact reasons for splitsville. For the past year, I’ve been playing around with this idea of an Exit Interview. We have exit interviews when we leave a job, so why don’t we have exit interviews when we leave a person?

The premise of the Exit Interview is to reveal each other’s strengths and weaknesses, reasons for departure, and key takeaways for the next relationship. I know, this all sounds so corporate, but the Exit Interview is most successful when it’s mostly void of emotions. As a dating coach, I recommend all of my clients to first close the ex files for at least 3 months and then conduct the interview. This way, it allows both parties a time to chill out and think (somewhat) rationally.

I'm interested in this experiment in trying to formalize "finishing your business" from the past. On the one hand, it seems too business-like and somewhat unrealistic. I don't think I agree with Simone's view that the best "interview" is one mostly void of emotions. When I consider the few times I have had something like this occur with a partner at the end of the relationship, some kind of emotional release was an important part of the process of letting go. Expression and release on my own, but also expression and release with the other person. Just having a dry and rational analysis feels way too much like an exit interview at a job, which I think is a nice model, but not to be followed to the letter.

On the other hand, I really like the sense of consciously attempting to have closure. To spend time with someone you might have loved, or even still love, and sharing something with each other that could ultimately aid both of you moving forward in a more healthy way.

One of the problems, though, is that often, doing such an interview is either next to impossible, or might simply lead to more damage being done. Some people cut and run and don't look back, and trying to connect with them is pretty pointless. Some relationships end due to physical or emotional patterns of violence, and going back to meet with those folks might lead to more trauma on both ends. And some relationships simply weren't that deep to begin with, and reaching out as part of the closure process might not mean a whole lot to either person, even if seeing each other would be just fine.

So, it seems to me like there would be a limited subset of relationships where this kind of action could be a good part of the process. But I do think it's an interesting idea to consider.

What do you make of it?

"Till Death Do Us Part"

2011-07-29T12:46:00.000-07:00

If I'm honest, I have always been on the fence about marriage. When I was younger, I was afraid of commitment. And I needed to have some experience to realize the value of a committed relationship, and what it takes to maintain one. In more recent years, I have, you might say, become more "marriage minded" in a sense, while still wondering about what it really might mean for me and a partner.

One thing that has often come up is the following question: How does lifelong commitment wash with expanded lifespans?

"Till Death Do Us Part" is a variation of a phrase that comes from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. Originally published in 1549, elements of this text have had some strong influence on the English speaking world, sometimes regardless of any one person's religious affiliation. Historically, this was due, in great part, both to England's colonizing role around the globe, and also to the fact that the Book of Common Prayer was amongst the earliest mass produced texts. Today, it's impact is probably much less so than even one hundred years ago, but there are still lingering elements, such as "Till death us do part," which is part of the traditional marriage liturgy.

You're probably wondering, what's this guy going on about the history of some religious book for? Well, there are a lot of reasons for this. First off, although marriage is not, historically, a religious institution, it's become intimately intertwined with churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, and the rest. And that isn't a major issue to me, but it can create a quandary for those who are either not affiliated with a religious institution, or who aren't of the same religious background.

For those who have secular views of life, it's easy enough to have a civil marriage ceremony, performed by a government official of some sort. However, I sometimes wonder if people still feel pressure from family members or even friends to do a religious-based ceremony. Obviously, that pressure doesn't stop a lot of couples from doing it their own way, but I think it's worth considering how cultural forces can, and often do, impact our intimate relationships.

As far marriage between people of different religious/spiritual backgrounds, it wasn't that long ago that it was almost taboo for a Catholic to marry a Protestant. My grandmother has stories about such situations, and I can imagine that it even occasionally comes up today. (In fact, in parts of Ireland, I'm quite certain it's still "a major issue.")

But you know, for me, the issue of longevity of relationships, coupled with individual growth and change, is perhaps the most important amongst the few things I'm, bringing up here.

When the phrase "Till death us do part" was first penned in the Book of Common Prayer, people who reached their 50s were considered quite old. Commonplace diseases took down many folks. Warfare took down many others. And the simple wear and tear of living took down most of the rest, far before they could reach what we sometimes call "the golden years" these days. The average marriage might have lasted 20 or 30 years, with the longer term exceptions coming mostly amongst those with the most power and wealth, and thus were more protected from the toil and diseases of the day. In addition, women frequently died in childbirth, even into the first half of the 20th century, which significantly shortened many marriages.

Given all of this, the idea of being married for life made a lot of sense. Now, there were all kinds of imbalances within the institution of marriage that favored men, but when you look at it purely from a length of time perspective, it seems reasonable to marry someone and stick with them.

Today, the average life expectancy in the U.S. is around 80 years old. Women generally live a few years longer than men, but overall, it's nearly twice what it was back in the 16th century. Furthermore, whereas the majority of people were, out of necessity, focused on activities of survival back then, the majority of us today have the potential for much broader and deeper lives. It's common now, for example, to see people in their 40's and 50s returning to college, converting to another religion or spiritual path, learning a new trade, or simply refocusing their priorities. And all of that can, and often does, have a big impact on intimate relationships, including marriages.

What I'm saying here is that perhaps a lot of what we think about in terms of marriage is either outdated, or in need of reshaping, based upon our longer life spans, and the plethora of opportunities many of us have to grow and change as people. Although I would love to have a single partner to be with for the rest of my life, I also wonder if that's really likely, and even if it's a view that might, down the line, cause me and another a lot of misery.

If I got married today, and lived to be 80 years old, I would be with the same person for 45 years. Not quite as long as the marriages of my grandparents, but still a long time. Do I think I could be genuinely happy and able to grow and develop within such a marriage? Sure. Would I do my best to maintain such a connection, and maintain my commitment? No doubt.

But I also think that part of living your relationship as a conscious relationship is recognizing what's blocking each person from truly opening into their lives, and doing what you can to help break through those blocks. Even if it means, ultimately, ending the relationship. This is far different from the person who isn't really committed, or who, when things gets tough, decides to bail. This is about being committed to what's best for each other, and operating from a place of non-possessiveness of the other.

That's another thing about marriage I have struggled with. There seems to be an implicit possessiveness within the institution. Remember, women were considered property of their husbands not too terribly long ago, and I think some of that possessiveness has slipped into both genders' in more recent times, even amongst the best of relationships. This isn't to say that marriage should be tossed out, but more that perhaps one of the major lynchpins that must be faced together is possessiveness and control. Which isn't unique to marriage - you can find it all over the place - but which perhaps takes on a different flavor (duty, obligation, fixed roles, etc.) within a marriage.

So, that's a lot to wade through. It's actually only a small taste of what I have to say on these subjects, but it's enough for now.

What do you think? How do you consider marriage (or lifelong partnership) in an age of expanded lifespans?

Assembly Line of Hot

2011-07-27T08:27:00.000-07:00

Let's talk lists. You know what I'm talking about here. The ones in your mind that you use to decide if someone is worthy of consideration or not. They are quite commonplace amongst anyone Gen X or younger, and unlike in previous generations, they have gotten much longer and thus much harder to fulfill.

Now I'm not interested in going back to the days where the lists consisted of the following questions:

Most men: Is she healthy enough to have children? Can she cook and clean and keep house?

Most women: Does he have a steady job? Or will he be a good provider?

Obviously, there might be a few more conditions on these "traditional," pre-women's liberation movement lists, but not a whole lot. Or perhaps it might be more true to say that the "perfect man" and "perfect women" narratives still existed, but played much less of role in how people chose their partners.

The liberation from a single, dominant model of relationship built upon marriages where men were the power brokers, and women mostly stayed at home was a great blessing in numerous ways. The fact that people today have the option of choosing something like that model as one of many ways of being together is, in itself, a positive sigh in my book.

However, all of this relationship diversity has grown up within a consumerist culture that emphasizes the biggest and best, and tells us that there are always more to choose from just around the corner.

The man you are with snores? Go ahead and dump him. You deserve silence while you sleep.

The woman you are with gained 10 lbs? Go ahead and dump her. You deserve that Barbie Doll figure at all times.

Honestly, when I read some of the lists in profiles online, it sounds like what they want are designer lovers. Straight from the Assembly Line of Hot to you.

I found this mostly tongue and cheek list of traits desired in "The Perfect Man." Although the particular author seems to be just entertaining herself and her blog audience, some of the real lists I have seen aren't all that far off in terms of their improbability.

Wes Anderson’s genius
Adrian Brody’s style
Zach Braff’s quirky humor
Chris Sharma’s athleticism
The Dalai Lama’s compassion
JT Holmes’s fearlessness
David Duchovny’s wit
Mark Ruffalo’s looks
Ben Gibbard’s way with words
Josh Halloway’s dimpled smile (the smile could melt the clothes right off my back. um. did I just say that out loud? my bad.)
Johnny Depp’s enigmatic eyes
Robert Downey Junior’s everything (let’s face it)
Ryan Reynold’s body
Aaron Nace’s creativity
Zach Condon’s gypsy ways
Jamie Oliver’s skills in the kitchen
Ray Lamontagne’s voice
Jude Law’s accent
Michael Franti’s heart
Tom Robbin’s vivid imagination
Quentin Tarantino’s intellect (seriously, the guy is a MENSA member)
Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s sex appeal
Ed Norton’s activism

Also, a smidgeon of badass either in the form of Wolverine or Tyler Durden
And a whole lotta Cusack (here he is, the king of lists, in High Fidelity)

Now that’s what I call a tall order! I’m sure I’m missing the Clooney’s and the Damon’s and the Gyllenhaal’s of the world but there are only so many men you can fit in one man.

This isn't just an issue for women. Consider this actual list from NFL linebacker Dhani Jones:

smart
quick-witted, yet possesses a calming motherly quality
adventurous
sporty
speaks languages
cooks
tall, slender (but she can be a little bit thicker)
from a great background
Exotic, maybe light brown/olive complected/mixed background
well-traveled
huge heart
creative soul
strong
independent
stands firm behind her man (but not in front, perhaps beside)
long hair
no weave
incredible hands
insatiable eyes
wants a huge family
can talk to a homeless person or a wealthy person
she can play in the mud in the morning and go to a black tie event at night
she’s ok on her own but she loves her man
independently wealthy helps

So, do any of you reading this blog even come close to either of these lists? How could anyone really?

People talk a lot about not wanting to "settle," which I believe is an understandable, and even useful notion if it's placed in proper context. The problem is that, what many of us mean by "settle" is really "I'm afraid of choosing the wrong person, so I'll keep my options open and my list long and difficult to reach." Not wanting to settle is often code for afraid to commit, to take a risk with someone. And when it's not that, it's often about attachment to superficial qualities that really don't make much of a difference when it comes to actually building a successful relationship.

When I think of what I'm not willing to settle for, it tends to be about deeper values and ways of being in the world. I'm not willing to be with someone whose life revolves around entertainment and gossip. I'm not willing to be with someone who ignores the welfare of others, or who places too much stock in material possessions. That's the kind of stuff that I have on my list. And even then, I have had to learn to be careful with such a list because it's not always apparent right away whether someone "fits" or not. Determining things like integrity, commitment to asking the "big questions" in life, kindness, and respect for others, to name a few examples, takes awhile. And no one is perfect in any of these areas, so it's more about sussing out someone's patterns than it is about finding a "perfect match."

In the end, we all fall short of each others' lists. And yet, we all also contain much more than anyone's list could ever draw out. So, the way I see it, if you're going to have a list to help you decide whom to date and be with, make it about the most important qualities - the ones that make or break relationships - and leave the Assembly Line of Hot list to fantasy land. Which is where it belongs.

Thoughts?

Facebook and Relationships

2011-07-25T09:18:00.000-07:00

I have been noticing again how Facebook can play a curious role in our intimate relationships. Here are a few examples of decisions that I have seen playing out online.

1. Someone I know who is having difficulties with her partner recently deleted that she was with him. He's still around, but to the online world, he's basically gone.

2. Another friend recently got married, and suddenly I watched as her last name changed from her maiden name to her new husband's last name. And then the comments flooded in from all of her friends, including a few surprised about the name change.

3. A younger friend of mine had a period where she'd offer nearly blow by blow status updates about her rocky relationship with her boyfriend. Some of this, no doubt, can be chalked up to being a teenager. However, for those of us who were teens before the Facebook era, all of that kind of stuff stayed within a certain circle. Now, it can travel all over the world, and lingers on in cyberspace, long afterwards.

Notice these are all women I mention. I do wonder if there are differences in how men and women approach Facebook when it comes to relationships. Are women more given to noting relationship changes online? I don't know, but most of the men in my Facebook circle don't have much to say about their relationships, or lack there of, on their Facebook pages.

However, given what I have read in recent years, there are certainly plenty of men who are using Facebook and other social media in some respect to their relationships. Perhaps men are offering more visual details, like frequently updating photos with girlfriends present. Or they are checking out the pages of women they like in real life for signs that she's still single. Or isn't single. And of course, some are using Facebook as a means of checking up on a partner, and/or even to gain information to control their relationships. Much of this activity is less visible than frequent status changes and comments, but it's still part of the mix.

How has Facebook impacted your relationships? How do you use (or not use) Facebook when it comes to your dating life?

Just Be Upfront and Don't Lie

2011-07-22T09:39:00.000-07:00

I have seen variations of the two statements in several blog posts and comments sections over the past few days. A lot of folks are outraged, and/or are lamenting how much people seem to lie, or withhold parts of the truth in the dating world. It also frustrates me as well, however, I find some of the conversation around "truth telling" to be unrealistic, and way too black and white.

If you are just meeting someone, or even have only been dating someone for a short period of time, there are usually some natural elements missing.

Such as:

trust

knowledge of the other person's way of being and acting in the world

love (beyond something like "I love all people or the world" kind of love)

shared history

To the degree that these elements are in place in a relationship, it will be more likely that someone will be able to be more honest and truthful about all aspects of their lives with another.

Now, in writing that, I'm not saying it's ok for someone to lie to you about being married, or having a partner, for example. It's more about questioning the idea that relative strangers should tell you the whole truth and nothing but the truth when you spend time together.

When first getting to know someone, most of us pick and choose what to reveal about ourselves. We may be totally honest about the things we are talking about, but we might not bring up that drunken one stand we had ten years ago, or the intimate details of the break up of our last long term relationship. In fact, it's often viewed as a red flag when someone brings those kinds of things into a conversation with a date so early on.

When someone says "Just be up front," I take that to mean "tell me what you're looking for and tell me anything that might be a deal breaker." It seems straight forward enough, right? These are some basic questions that I usually hope to have answered early on.

Are you married, or seeing anyone seriously? Are you a drug user? Are you socially/politically conservative? If you have children, is the relationship with the father healthy or at least not likely to have lots of drama attached to it? Is your aim to find someone to be in a long term relationship with, or are you just hoping for some fun and casual connections?

There are some others, but that's a decent example of the kinds of questions I feel are reasonable to work with in the early stages. Questions like this are trying to establish if there is enough shared ground to develop a relationship on.

Of course, during any given date, if the conversation is actually moving, there will be lots of questions. Everything from the mundane to perhaps deeply personal, intimate questions about various aspects of your lives. And that's great. If you're actually in a place where both people are asking lots of questions and listening to each others' answers, something is probably going right.

But you know, it's often the case that you'll hit questions that are too early in the process for complete, honest answers. Sometimes, people aren't very socially adept, and simply ask way too intimate of questions on first or second dates. And sometimes, a level of intimacy develops between two people almost right away, creating a sense of trust and security that actually isn't developed.

Let's consider a few dicey questions:

1. Have you ever cheated on anyone?

Now, I'm on the fence as to whether this question is ok early on or not. I can see where it might be a great way to weed out people who are obviously not able or willing to commit to their partners. On the other hand, cheating is a slippery term that can mean many things to many people. Some people consider looking at porn. Some people consider spending a lot of time with a close friend of the opposite sex (or same sex among GLBTQ couples) alone to be cheating. Perhaps what someone has done in past relationships wasn't considered cheating between them, but those same behaviors you might consider cheating. Which gets at a problem with the question itself. By asking it, are you wanting to weed out anyone who has ever cheated in any form? Or are you wanting to weed out people with underlying patterns only? Or what? And what do you mean by "cheating" anyway?

2. Are you financially stable?

Finding out about a potential partner's finances is tricky. And I firmly believe it's a process that unfolds, rather than a once and for all declaration. You'll see how a person handles money. Or what they talk about when it comes to finances. I have been asked a variation of this question a few times on first or second dates, and it's always felt a bit off. What do you mean by "stable"? If you mean can I pay my bills and have money left over to enjoy myself, then I can say yes. If you mean, do you have a well paying job, then I'd say no right now. But like the first question, this isn't necessarily are helpful question. Someone can have a decently paying job, but be an absolutely terribly money manager. I have had experience with that, dating women who actually made more than I did, but always seemed to be broke or in debt. And someone can have a poorly paying job or even without a job, but be a great financial manager who can figure out ways have a good life regardless of the amount of income coming in. (This fairly accurately describes me, as well as at least two of my good friends.)

There are plenty of other questions that could be added to this list, but one of the main points is that it's unrealistic to expect people to be 100% up front and truthful about ever last thing you might ask them in the early stages of dating. I tend to subscribe to the view that I aim to live in the spirit of truthfulness, openness, and being genuine in a relationship, and that is what I'm looking for in a partner as well. However, there might be times when I don't fully answer a question I'm asked, or where I might say something like "Maybe we can talk about that more if we're together for awhile." This actually doesn't happen too often for me, since I am a pretty open and expressive person. But I used to be more shy and reserved, and so I was more given to sharing less, or figuring out a way to return the conversation to the other person. Shyness plays a role in all of this, and I think that sometimes people mistake shyness and being reserved with having a pattern of lying and deception.

What are your thoughts on all of this?

Warning Signs on the First Date

2011-07-20T10:27:00.000-07:00

Over at the blog The Wrong Fish is a short list of warning signs that your date isn't that into you, or isn't someone who you'll want to be with. She only offers three signs: avoiding answering questions, punctuality, and cell phone-itis. So, I thought I would add some more. I'm writing from the perspective of a man dating women, but you could probably apply these to any gender combination.

1. Frequently glancing at her watch.

Perhaps she's got an appointment to get to afterwards, or some family function to go to. However, the vast majority of my experience has been that when a woman is frequently watching the watch, she's not interested.

2. Physically moving away from you as the date goes on.

You've probably experienced this one before. The slow shifts backwards in her chair. The moving her hands away from the table. The quick walking away from you as the date ends to avoid a hug or kiss. Even the most shy person tends to do something to move closer to touching a person they are interested in. It might just be a leaning in during the conversation, but it's there if you pay attention.

3. Lack of eye contact.

If you aren't looking into each others' eyes at least some of the time, there's probably something wrong. Even on active dates, like playing a game together or dancing at a concert, there are opportunities for that kind of connection. And people who are into each other tend to take those opportunities.

4. Constantly arguing with or disagreeing with you.

This one is a bit trickier to work with. I know some people enjoy and even thrive on debating, and view it as sexy and attractive. I definitely have a debating streak in me and love a good volleying of ideas back and forth. But if an entire date revolves around that, I'd question any future with that person. I actually went on two dates over the winter with a woman who seemed to question every other word I said. Some of it was testing to see how I'd react, and some of it was that we just didn't see eye to eye on certain issues. But after two dates of that, I felt pretty exhausted. I love a smart woman who can hold her own intellectually. In fact, without that, I tend to lose interest. However, this situation felt like a competition, not a possible romance.

5. Too much talk about Ex's.

This is especially true if there appears to be a lot of hostility towards the Ex or Ex's, or if they seem to be still longing for an Ex. I have been on both sides of that coin, and it's basically a guarantee that the other person is going to be, at most, a rebound candidate.

What would you add these lists, and why?

Humor in Online Profiles

2011-07-18T17:20:00.000-07:00

Humor. It's vital to living a healthy life. Vital also to your relationships, whether romantic, friendships, family, co-workers, or any other form of connection.

A few months ago, I decided that my online profile was too serious. It spoke a bit to who I am, and what I want in a relationship, but it just sounded dry and stuffy. You know, like this guy is quite focused and passionate about certain things, but my god, can he crack a smile. Even my photos looked kind of serious - the smiles on my face fine, but not the kind of natural, wildly joyful ones you see in some people's pics.

Anyway, after writing some of that "serious" profile material, I added a top ten list a la David Letterman. It's silly, but I like how it lightens things up. And judging by the number of responses I've gotten from women since then, including women writing to me first, it's worked.

Here's the list.

Top ten reasons why you might want to go on a date with me:

10. You won't have to do a Google Search to find my pulse.

9. Someday, you might get to pet my neighbor's cats.

8. I occasionally get chased by dogs while biking.

7. The police won't suddenly appear while we are on a date to execute an arrest warrant.

6. I have never had cosmetic surgery to remove the tattooed name of an ex-girlfriend from my chest.

5. I'm not given to long winded stories about gettin' blitzed or marathon games of World of Warcraft.

4. My relationship status on Facebook is not "It's complicated."

3. You might learn how to turn the weeds in your backyard into medicine.

2. I'm fully clothed in all of my photos.

And the number one reason why you might want to go on a date with me:

1. Because dating Harley dudes and golf addicts hasn't worked out too well.

Now, although I did date someone for a short time following putting this list up, mostly it's just increased the correspondence volume. So, who knows if it will bring someone into my life for the long haul or not. But maybe, at least, I'm sparking a few smiles and chuckles. Which is vastly needed amongst all those profiles out there that are dull, filled with painful comments and past miseries, or are, like mine was, just too serious.

* I took the photo above after a snowstorm last winter.