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!

The New York Times reports that a study of middle-school students has “found for the first time that abstinence-only education helped to delay their sexual initiation.” Uh oh? The finding “is already beginning to shake up the longstanding debate over how best to prevent teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.”

Okay okay! Nobody panic! Keep reading.

“[T]he abstinence-only classes in the Jemmott study…unlike the federally supported abstinence programs now in use, did not advocate abstinence until marriage. The classes also did not portray sex negatively or suggest that condoms are ineffective, and contained only medically accurate information. [This] abstinence-only course was designed for the research, and is not in current use in schools.” [Emphasis added.]

Well, there you go. Look, the debate has never been about abstinence-only vs. “…and, for your homework, please have sex this afternoon.” It’s moralistic, inaccurate abstinence-only vs. comprehensive and realistic: please wait; if you don’t, please be responsible. Though there are those who will misrepresent this research as surely as they misrepresent the effectiveness of condoms, it’s actually yet another vote in our favor.

Update: This (PDF) just in from our heroes at Guttmacher: “While the evaluated program is the first abstinence-only intervention to demonstrate this positive impact in a randomized control trial, it was not a rigid ‘abstinence-only-until-marriage’ program of the type that, until this year, received significant federal funding. The evaluation, therefore, adds important new information to the question of “what works” in sex education, but it essentially leaves intact the significant body of evidence showing that abstinence-only- until-marriage programming that met previous federal guidelines is ineffective.”

BG’s alter ego joins a distinguished panel…

Thursday, February 11, 2010
7:30-9:30 p.m.
FREE

Full Spectrum and Greenlight Bookstore
present
THE STAR-CROSSED LOVERS
“Is it better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all?”

A panel discussion with four creators who explore the bittersweet nature of romantic love.

Join us when poet/author/playwright Mo Beasley, musician/singer-songwriter Trevor Exter, author/journalist/advice columnist/BG alter ego Lynn Harris, and musician/composer Tamar-kali discuss the ideas and experiences behind their work, and the prickly thorns that can bloom with desire.  Moderated by musician/transformational counselor K. Neycha Herford.

Greenlight Bookstore
686 Fulton Street
[@ South Portland, in Fort Greene]
Brooklyn, NY 11217

C to Lafayette Ave; G to Fulton;
2/3, 4/5, D, Q to Atlantic Ave;
D, M, N, R to Pacific St

About Full Spectrum: Conversations Among Artists, Activists, Explorers & Thinkers

Held at cultural venues throughout New York City, Full Spectrum explores complex social issues through a prism of arts and culture.  Each event features four creators in a one-hour discussion on a topic that links their work, followed by an audience Q&A.  Panelists are drawn from the worlds of dance, fashion, film, literature, music, theater, visual art, and more.  The forums are free to the public, and their impact lasts long after the conversations have ended.

Co-Founders/Co-Producers:
Brian Tate & Danny Simmons
Co-Directors: Lacy Austin, Vanessa Chakour, K. Neycha Herford
Advisors: LaRonda Davis, Malissa/Masala

FS Partners
Our 2010 Season is presented by Con Edison, with generous support from Rush Philanthropic Arts Foundation, The BRMC Group, Inc., and Bill de Blasio.  Our venue partners are Danny Simmons’ Corridor Gallery, Greenlight Bookstore, and powerHouse Arena.

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

MSN.com, Match.com, HappenMagazine.com: they’re in a healthy and satisfying 3-way relationship. Meaning that you can find MSN/Match.com’s “Ask Lynn” columns –penned by BG’s alter ego — over at Happen now as well.

This week Lynn deals with a letter from a 51-year-old woman who feels like she’s Back in Junior High because her best friends are making her choose between her boyfriend and them. And with good reason:

He is manipulative, a “dry drunk,” selfish, immature, etc. They accuse me of staying in an “abusive” relationship because I am addicted to the drama.

Who’s side are you on? Read the full letter at Happen, then come back here to comment!