e-mail to a friend in needMoDo’s checklist for marital bliss
You may have seen the much buzzed-about New York Times article in which Maureen Dowd, in consultation with 79-year-old Catholic priest Fr. Pat Connor, laid out 10 requirements for the “ideal husband.” Though I’m pretty sure BG hates MoDo with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns, I’ve got to say I think her checklist makes perfect sense. Having witnessed my parents experience the ups and downs of marriage, I’ve come to understand that love is just the beginning of a successful lifetime partnership. So here, in case you missed it, is what MoDo and Fr. Pat urge you to consider. (I’ll use male pronouns as the article implies that only girls are on the big hunt — lies!):
- Does he have friends? This is an automatic red flag if he doesn’t. If other people don’t think highly of him, enjoy his company, or want to be around him, then why should you?
- Does he use money responsibly? Money is not everything, but it is important. The key word here is “responsible.” Is he cheap? A gambler? If you’re looking towards marriage, you want to be sure the two of you will be able to make the financial decisions that support your plans for the future, and not your own selfish (or stingy) endeavors.
- Is he a doormat? Fr. Pat warns, “Steer clear of someone whose life you can run, who never makes demands counter to yours.” The best relationships I’ve had were with guys who were able to sass me right back back and make me realize that it wasn’t all about me. While it’s fun to be in the driver’s seat, it’s much more rewarding to be moving along together.
- Is he a mama’s boy? Loves and respects his mom: great. But: a fella who’s constantly running to momma — instead of you — for help with decisions large and small may not be a primo candidate for commitment to you. Doree Lewak, author of The Panic Years: A Guide to Surviving Smug Married Friends, Bad Taffeta, and Life on the Wrong Side of 25 without a Ring
, agrees, adding that if (God forbid) you and she disagree, he will likely not side with you. Yeah, worse than awkward.
- Does he have a sense of humor? And we don’t just mean “Can he tell a joke?” or “Does he still crack up all of Zeta Psi when he does that thing with the lampshade and the bagel?” Fr. Pat says humor “covers a multitude of sins.” (Hey, that means there’s hope for me!) If you’re planning on spending a lifetime with one person, you’re going to have maybe, you know, one or two moments where the car breaks down in the middle of nowhere or you burn the calamari at your first dinner party, or worse, and you’re going to need some real levity. You remember what Big said to Carrie, and that it’s illegal to write a post like this without a SATC reference: “Sometimes you just want to be with the one that makes you laugh.”
- Beware the strong, silent type. Ah, the mysterious, brooding soul. I admit I was a sucker for these back in the day, but let’s face it, without two-way communication, your relationship will fall flat in no time.
- “Don’t marry a problem character thinking you will change him.” You won’t.
- Take a look at his family. My mother always jokes that she should have done so before marrying my father. But it is important to consider the values he’s inherited (tolerance, respect, adoring you, etc). (Of course, some nightmare Aadams families produce total gems, so you never know.)
- Is religion an issue? Work it out beforehand, though not at the dinner table with his parents.
- “Does he possess those character traits that add up to a good human being — the willingness to forgive, praise, be courteous?” Ah, the best for last.
After Fr. Pat gives this talk, the audience response is usually, “But you’ve eliminated everyone!” Not so. No, really! Anyone want to share a portrait of hope? Or weigh in on (or against) one of the above? Or add your own?
Generally speaking, I really like the Ask
Lynn column and find her advice on the money.
About the disabled gentleman: Is he not setting himself up by not mentioning his situation right up front? Very few human beings are prepared for the complications
involved of a disabled individual. Ordinary
relationships are difficult, complex, and
stressful. Can you imagine the kind of
‘extraordinary’ person required to handle
this type of multi-dimensional problem?
If he does not mention this issue up front, I wonder if women would not feel deceived, and betrayed? Given information up front ‘empowers’ women to choose for themselves what they want to do. Otherwise, there is an aspect of manipulation, bait and switch. One person knows the truth ahead of ]
time and the other does not. They do not see
what each other look like. If the woman involved in this case had known ahead of time
what his circumstances are about she may not
have been interested.
Rejection, or disinterest, in the long run may perhaps be less difficult to address interpersonally than outright ‘dishonesty’.
Putting the cards on the table as painful
as it maybe in situations like this (internet) meetings, appears to be the best way to go. The person with the disability becomes the one with the most power. He/or
she has nothing to hide.
Comment by mk — July 12, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
If the lady wants to visit him after a few emails and only two online chats, she might be looking for a quick casual fling, or she might be too eager for a relationship (read: unrealistic in her expectations). I always treat a woman wanting to meet me after such brief contact, and presumably not even a photo exchange, as a major red flag. I’m fairly sure this fellow will be disappointed even in the unlikely event she overlooks his disability (and overlook it is the best it seems he can hope for from her).
Comment by Mike — July 12, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
While I like your point of view, you have presumed a great deal about this woman, (a) she
would even want a ‘casual’ fling with him, once she’s seen him or (b) have any interest at all. What he ‘describes’ to her is only one dimension of this situation. As you mentioned in your message,(about the ‘picture’)when she’sees’ him, the situation changes entirely.
However, your point is well taken in ‘regular’ situations when people appear to be
overly anxious and are not doing their homework. This situation is decidedly not ‘normal’.
Anyone who has a disability and chooses to ‘withold’ important personal data is trying to
‘manipulate’ the playing field. Unfortunately, these cases are all heartwrenching. Even after two ‘brief’ exchanges, as saying goes, “Something is not right in the state of Denmark”.
To withold is to be ‘dishonest’. He needs to go in therapy find the strenght to be up front
in his communications with others. He may not even have had a ‘brief second’ meeting on-line if
she knew of his situation.
I have also seen situations where many women who ‘know’ ahead of time when communications
are clear, choose disabled men of all types and create a life. Some good people may be lost
because they could be turned off by misperceiving fear, vulnerability, as manipulation,
and dishonesty.
Comment by mk — July 12, 2008 @ 8:14 pm
“If the lady wants to visit him after a few emails and only two online chats, she might be looking for a quick casual fling, or she might be too eager for a relationship (read: unrealistic in her expectations).”
Okay, I don’t know what this has to do with the MoDo article, or the “checklist”, but I had to respond because I can’t believe that in a world of instant communication, someone would be as narrowminded as to assume that a woman would want to meet a man face to face “this fast”.
Let’s look at more traditional “meet and date” scenarios for a second:
1. Grocery store, library, bookstore, music festival, etc.: Oh look, you’ve already met, talked a little, and now you exchange email addresses/phone numbers before going home or back to hang with your friends. You write or call a couple times, and voila, you schedule a real “date”. HOW IS THIS ANY DIFFERENT?
2. Friends hook you up. You both agree to attend some get together with friends for a possible introduction to each other. You meet that night, hang out with each other and friends, and at the end of the night, exchange numbers and a day or two later, plan a one-on-one date. HOW IS THIS ANY DIFFERENT?
If you’re going to get yourself involved in using the internet to MEET people, then the whole idea there is to actually MEET, not sit and talk online or on the phone for 2 months before ever going out for something as simple as coffee or lunch for crying out loud.
The notion that a woman who wants to meet after a few emails and chats is “easy” or “desperate” is a very closed-minded one, and will do nothing but keep you judging women (and likely others) so you can validate your own fear and committment issues.
Comment by Terminally Single - Like Cancer — July 13, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
Sorry: “someone would be as narrowminded as to assume that a woman would want to meet a man face to face “this fast””
Should read: “someone would be as narrowminded as to assume that a woman would want to meet a man face to face “this fast” means that something’s wrong with her”
Sorry, my brain was working faster than my fingers…
Comment by Terminally Single - Like Cancer — July 13, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
mk,
NOBODY puts all their cards on the table on (or before) the first date.
Back in December I was dating a woman that I met at church. After dating for about 3 weeks, she told me that she had an STD.
I did not feel deceived. I did not feel manipulated. I did not feel betrayed.
She told me information that I needed to know. She told me BEFORE we became physically intimate. It never occurred to me to ask why she hadn’t told me earlier. Before then, I didn’t need to know. And if we had broken up before we became intimate, I NEVER would have needed to know.
I expect to learn about my girlfriends’ flaws at the same pace that I learn about their good points. “Total disclosure” upfront is a losing strategy … unless you can totally disclose all your good points at the same time.
I ended up dating the woman with the STD for another four months after she told me about it. We broke up because she wants lots of kids, and I don’t want any. Neither trust nor STDs played any role in the breakup.
Furthermore, I’m not sure that someone needs to be that extraordinary to cope with a partner who has physical limitations. Have you ever observed people in their 70s, 80s and 90s? Everybody develops some sort of disability sooner or later. We lose our mobility, our vision, our hearing and our memory. Regardless of how UNextraordinary our partner is, he or she will have to handle the situation. And we’ll have to deal with our partner’s disabilities … despite the limitations placed upon us by our own disabilities.
Extraordinary multi-dimensional problem, my ass. It’s as ordinary as growing old. Some people just have to deal with those problems sooner.
Comment by Karl R — July 13, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
[...] like the researchers may not understand what computers actually do, or how relationships actually work, for that matter. What if I’m talking to friends and family on the computer, and what if I do [...]
Pingback by Breakup Girl » You’re cute, but my MacBook’s cuter — October 23, 2008 @ 6:37 am