Author (and FOBG) Lori Gottlieb appeared on the Today Show this morning to discuss her — to me, bizarrely — inflammatory book, Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough, which basically urges women to be picky about the important stuff (kindness) and not picky about the not-important stuff (height), and which Lemondrop summarizes rather equitably here. What it’s left in its wake is a lot of women feeling very rankled and defensive about being told they should “settle,” which is not really what Lori is saying. That said, I understand the defensiveness. Women, rightly, do not like to hear, which they often do, over and over, that they are “too picky.” (Yes, picky. About the person you are going to spend your life with. Urr?) Not that there aren’t women (and men) who are indeed “too picky.” But to be told that, or to get that message from our culture, which single women do, over and over, can be insulting, dismissive, unsympathetic. For one thing among many, it puts the dating onus squarely and only on the woman, whereas it’s not like every still-single woman is surrounded by terrific uncomplicated men on bended knee, just waiting for her to get over her thing about bowties or “no lawyers” or whatever. Women who have gone on a million dates with and given a million chances to a million perfectly nice guys who for whatever legitimate reason leave them lukewarm do not want to hear that they are “just being picky.” They are tired. They are trying. Go away.  That’s part of my theory, anyway, for why Lori’s message, fairly or not, has left so many women so totally steamed.

I also wonder this: to the degree that men are paying attention to this tempest in a coffee-date, how does this message make you feel? If I may render it in the shorthand of stereotype, it’s basically “give the short bald poor guy a chance.” Do you feel that Lori’s advice, for those who follow it, could spell triumph for the common man? Let us know in comments!

February is Dating Violence Awareness Month.
Start with this, and probably this, too; we’ll be back with more.
Love,
BG

Loads of props to Psychology Today’s Living Single blog, an excellent source of pro-single advocacy courtesy of perennial BG fave Bella DePaulo, Ph.D. One of their trusty commenters picked up on the singles-bashing embedded in this recent New York Times article about research out of Australia suggesting that  married women may gain more weight than single women. The study in question, conducted over a ten-year period, found that whether or not they bear children, married women tend to pack on more pounds than their never-married counterparts.

It’s not the findings themselves that slant anti-single; it’s the totally facile, clueless quote that another (female) egghead, asked to comment on the study, got away with. I’ll let DePaulo sum up what sucks about it:

“Before I tell you her answer — which was just a guess — imagine what answer would have been proffered if it were the single women who got fatter. Probably that they are home alone sitting on their couches eating ice cream, in a desperate attempt to sugar-coat that bitter man-less taste in their mouths.”

Buh-zing, DePaulo. Here’s the real quote:

“‘It’s interesting and brings out some important points,’ said Maureen A. Murtaugh, an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Utah, who has published widely on weight gain in women. Perhaps, she suggested, a more active social life may help explain why women with partners gain more weight.”

Marrieds have more active social lives? Don’t people usually assume the other way around? Oh wait, I get it… because singles, mortified of revealing their grotesque, table-for-one faces in public, eat tear-soggy dinners under the covers of their twin-sized Murphy beds.

“‘Think of going to a restaurant,’ Dr. Murtaugh said. ‘They serve a 6-foot man the same amount as they serve me, even though I’m 5 feet 5 inches and 60 pounds lighter.’”

Okay, I’m thinking of that… that has nothing to do with being married. And btw, way to sneak in an elbow jab toward us glamazonly-tall girls. And also btw, I’m married, not incapable of asking for a doggie bag when I judge that titanic slab of man-meat I’ve just been served too much for my delicate belly.

As the blog entry notes about studies of marriage in general: “Even when marrying has a bad* effect, it will be attributed to something good.” Lots more juicy stuff here.

*Ever non-fat-phobic, we’d stop short of saying that gaining weight always = “bad.” But point still taken.

Dating expert Rachel Greenwald made a splash with her 2003 self-help book Find a Husband After 35: (Using What I Learned at Harvard Business School)and spent years researching her 2009 follow-up, Why He Didn’t Call You Back: 1,000 Guys Reveal What They Really Thought About You After Your Date(re-christened for its March 2010 paperback release as the more empowering and less finger-waggy Have Him at Hello: Confessions from 1,000 Guys About What Makes Them Fall in Love . . . Or Never Call Back) by interviewing 1,000 men about their honest reactions to real dates.

Through the insights gleaned from these candid chats, Greenwald, a professional yenta and dating coach, became a staunch advocate of third-party “exit interviews” for both men and women who have been blown off after one or two dates and desire some useful info about what might have gone wrong. She likens these post-mortems to performance reviews at work, and thinks they are the key to discovering potentially stymieng blind spots about one’s own dating behavior. Recently Greenwald has begun training others to become professional “exit interviewers.” Here’s what she had to say in an INTERVIEWinterview with BreakupGirl.net:

Why do you think it’s helpful to know why someone didn’t call you back, as opposed to just letting go and moving on?

Rachel Greenwald: Well, it’s like anything in life. Feedback improves your performance going forward. It’s a tool. You could be doing something like sending the wrong signal, or giving the wrong impression, and…not getting the results that you want. If only someone could coach you about how you were perceived and what went wrong, you could use that information to change things and get better results next time.

Do you think most people being “exit interviewed” are going to be honest?

(more…)

At the Daily Beast, Hannah Seligson, author of A Little Bit Married: How to Know When It’s Time to Walk Down the Aisle or Out the Door, blogs about the resistance to matrimony among GenX and GenY couples. Among the reasons she cites:

It’s an interesting topic. Among my own friends–many of whom have been married and divorced at least once–the major obstacle to marriage seems to be disenchantment with the institution itself, although I’ve also noticed that even the vehement nay-sayers seem to soften around the issue when their partners want to get hitched. It seems that, even if individuals are ambivalent about making it legal, our society as a whole is still pretty fixated on the idea–or else books like Ms Seligson’s would not exist.

I turn to you, reader: Is there a real difference between living together (or dating someone long-term without cohabitating) and getting married? If so, what do you think it is? And has that made you more, or less, interested in marriage?

Speaking of robots, this via Bust.com:

Now available, Roxxxy, is the customizable female version of TrueCompanion.com’s, sex robot line….Owners can choose Roxxxy’s race, hair color and breast size all to their individual liking, as well as, one of five different programmed “personalities”, designed to engage the owner in conversation. Inventor Douglas Hines [who says he was inspired by September 11: “everyone needs a companion”] was quoted at the expo as saying, “She can’t cook, she can’t clean, but she can do almost anything else, if you know what I mean.”

Great. Can she RISE UP AND DESTROY HER HUMAN CREATORS?

“…Rescued My Sex Life.” Here we have an example of a title that will get BG reading. Add the byline Diane Farr — she of superawesome tough-and-sweetness on Rescue Me (also, Numb3rs) — and I’m not looking away.

Farr wrote a nice essay in this month’s Marie Claire (put it onLINE, you guys!) about how utterly harmless, goal-less, going-nowhere-but-still-fizzy flirtation on the set of Californication — including but not limited to getting paid to make out with David Duchovny over and over and over and over … I’m sorry, what was I saying? Oh yeah, so she makes out with DD and exchanges sweet-nothing-at-alls with ScruffyCute Craft Services Kid, and all of a sudden she remembers that there IS sex life after three kids under the age of two.

“The days pressed on, and between makeouts, David and I said the same cute, cuddly lines to one another over and over for various camera angles, further reawakening the girly laughter that had often escaped me pre-babies. I’d go a round with David, then go chat up Work Crush [still wearing Hot Dress from Wardrobe], and after two minutes, I’d feel guilty, call my husband, and flirt with him, too. He didn’t know why I was so full of laughter, nor did he care. ‘You’re funny and sexy, and I really missed that,’ he said. And like that, I was his girl again.”

Nicely played, Ms. Farr. It’s so important — whether you’re taken or single — to live life on the Flirtation Continuum. Not to lead people on; not to go where you shouldn’t. But to allow yourself to connect with (most of) the full spectrum of feelings and connections between people, to remind yourself you still got it, to feel like the world is still full of buzz and sparkle and possibility, for all your relationships.

She should know, though, that Duchovny was, very likely, thinking of me.

Gotta give it to Google for reflecting various facets of our society. Remember the whole “did you mean he invented” revelation?

Now Dan Ariely of Predictably Irrational, expert and author on the subject of human irrationality, posts the results of he/she Google hints that concern the stuff we all wish we could know. Remember, Google uses algorithms to formulate these search suggestions or “hints” based on what other users have searched for countless times.

Thanks to Jen Bekman for the post.

Ah, breakup songs. They’re so often set on infinite repeat in our souls. So you oughta know: are they unhealthy in their forwarding of a pro-wallow agenda?

Not necessarily so, says Thao Nguyen — she of Thao and the Get Down Stay Down (a personal fave band o’mine, although better known for the sort of “something with shouting and hand claps in the chorus” songs which Nguyen identifies here as totally not breakup-friendly).  In this nice commentary in Bitch Magazine, Nguyen celebrates the therapeutic salve of a deeply felt, fully embraced breakup song. And she’s got an I’m-OK-you’re-OK take on the importance of the dirge for the recently dumped:

“It is the sauna where all your emotions gather after work and sit and talk shit or breathe deeply and with each action make themselves hotter and sweatier until there is such frenzied perspiration you are crying on the outside, probably alone in your car. The breakup song serves a very specific role in the triage of heartbreak. I’m not saying it’s healthy to delve and wallow — but I am saying everyone I know does it, so let us honor the sad, slow breakup song for the fucked-up and necessary friend it is.”

Breakup bonus: Included at essay’s end is Nguyen’s personally curated track list for the all-time heartbreak catalog. Comment or add your own here!

According to former FBI agent and flashy author Joe Navarro –“the nonverbal expert”– two major body-language indicators can hint at whether your mate is “still into you” (Navarro’s words, not mine — can we please retire this expression? Also, “cougar”? Thanks) or whether your relationship is headed south.

As Navarro explains in a recent article in Psychology Today, the first clue that a true connection exists between you and a loved one lies in the hands — when your snookums places a full, flat palm on your body (“palmer touching,” which kind of lacks frisson), this is a sign of real bonding and trust. The longer they leave it there, the warmer the relationship.

If, on the other, uh, hand, your partner tends only to touch briefly or with the fingertips (“distal touching”), the passion may be fading.

Now I’m smacking myself on the forehead. (“Duh touching.”)

The other nonverbal clue is what body-language professionals call “ventral fronting” — when your mate approaches you, does he or she face you head-on with no obstruction to the belly area? This is a subconscious behavior that signifies trust and affection. (Think “happy puppy getting her belly rubbed.”) Couples whose trust and affection are waning tend to face their abdominal regions away from each other (“ventral denial”), or hide behind crossed arms, purses, the Sunday Times, etc. Or Spanx?

Navarro uses obvious examples from pop culture (Jon & Kate, Chuck & Di) to illustrate his point, and concludes by saying:

… when it comes to interpersonal relationships, how we touch and how we present our ventral side says so much about the health and longevity of our relationship…

No argument there — body language is visceral and immediate and can help us understand what people are thinking and feeling in the moment.

However! A couple of things are bugging me, which you might be able to tell by the way I am currently placing a large cheese sandwich between my belly and the keyboard.

For one thing, articles like this, in seemingly respectable (albeit pop-psych, not scientific) magazines, seem to play right into that women’s-magazine-of-yore myth that the only way to understand your partner is to desperately seek for clues.

If you are reduced to reading body language to determine whether someone really loves you, doesn’t that in itself indicate some basic disconnect? (I’m asking, not telling, so weigh in if you disagree!)

Secondly, while I understand and support the value of observing nonverbal behavior, I also know that individuals behave differently under different circumstances — a distal touch here and a ventral denial there may simply indicate that a person is not feeling present, is distracted or nervous. Or just got their nails done. I don’t think that Navarro does a good enough job explaining that the occasional pair of crossed arms does not a relationship fiasco make.