Can He Last Three Minutes?

In the November issue of O (and that stands for Oprah, not Orgasm or Overstock.com), Dr. Helen Fisher discusses love at first site — or something rather close in her What’s Love Got To Do With It? column, “The First Three Minutes.”

Retro Tina-Turner-tune-title aside, the article itself is rather fascinating as it says that the first three minutes are essential for romance — and yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as love at first sight.

Fisher says — and my decades of dating experience agrees — that it takes less than one second to decide whether you find someone physically attractive. Then, if the dude passes, women listen. But what they are listening for may surprise you…

Women generally regard rapid talkers talkers as more educated and men with full, deep voices as better-looking than they are.

What the men say is also important — but, it seems, that even if we don’t really love the sound of our own voices, we are hoping to hear ourselves:

We like people who use the same words we use.

We are also drawn to those who have a similar degree of intelligence, share our religious and social values, and come from the same economic background — and we quickly determine these attributes from a man’s words (not to mention how he dresses and wears his hair, whether he’s carrying a briefcase of a soccer ball, and if he’s sporting a gold watch or a tattoo).

If all this sounds a bit too easy to be true, Fisher notes a survey by Ben-Gurion University’s Dr. Ayala Malach-Pines which says that maybe it is: Only 11% of her survey respondents said their long-term relationships began with love at first site.

So then Fisher points out that psychologists say that the the more you interact with a person you like (even slightly), the more you will come to find them good-looking, smart — and the all important “similar to you.”

Unless, that is, you discover a real deal-breaker.

But then that’s what dating is for, right? To spot the bad stuff before you have the mortgage, the kids, and a dog you both want.

Click the pic to read the entire scanned article:

helen-fisher-first-three-minutes-o-magazine

Why Asking That Trite Astrology Question May Not Be So Dumb

In the December issue of Psychology Today (fast becoming my favorite magazine), Matthew Hutson shares unusual and revealing information about birth months and personality, saying, “Astrology may be bullocks, but your month of birth still guides your fate.”

No one is sure why birth dates affect mental traits, but environmental effects during the third trimester (weather, amount of daylight, seasonal variation in the mother’s diet) are often blamed. Here’s what you birth date might portend.

And if such things as “people born in summer are more outgoing, curious, and imaginative, and less neurotic” are true, knowing the birth date of your mate — or potential mate — might give you some clues too. Click to enlarge and read the scan.

seasons-signs

He’s Got Wingmen; She’s Got Cock-Blockers

Also in the October issue of Psychology Today, a piece about cooperation in courtship by Matthew Hutson titled I’ve Got Wings. The piece, complete with diagrams for play like a football coach would use, may have been so titled to play upon the old wingman dealio; but that’s only half the story as the brief article, covering research by MIT’s Josh Ackerman and ASU’s Douglas Kenrick, exposes that women and men use their same-sex friends differently:

When a woman is flirting with a desirable guy, her girlfriends will tend to leave her alone, but when she’s interacting with an undesirable, they’ll step in. Conversely, guys will leave a buddy alone if he’s stuck with a dud and provide support if he’s onto something good.

This probably isn’t news to you; but it does concisely explain what’s going on as far as wingmen & cock-blocking.

(Yes, you can click to read/see a larger scan.)

cooperation-in-courtship

Also from Hutson’s article:

Three quarters of participants also reported that they’d used a pal as a decoy mate, typically (for men) to demonstrate desirability to other women or (for women) to ward off other guys.

Top reasons people offered for cooperation in courtship were self-satisfaction, help with future access, and friend maintenance. As competitive as the sating world is, humans advance — and defend — in packs.

If I wanted to continue the pun, I’d say something about dating going to the dogs. But I’m too classy to do that.

What Signals Are You Sending? (How & Why To See Yourself As Others See You)

Check out the October issue of Psychology Today; it’s full of great dating information (even if it’s not all listed as such). For example, the cover art & headline “What Signals Are You Sending?” which goes with a feature by Sam Gosling, entitled Mixed Signals.

psychology-today-cover-october-2009In the article, Gosling discusses our personal blind spots to the perceptions that others have of us and how we overestimate not just how we are seen in terms of flattering ourselves, but we overestimate the ability others have to be aware of our internal states & feelings — we overestimate the “extent to which our behavior and and appearance are noticed and evaluated by others — a bias known as the ‘spotlight effect.'”

In many cases, our opinion of ourselves and the perception of others clash — but that’s not even necessarily the worst part; you might not even be aware of it.

You need feedback (direct & indirect) from others to know what they think of you, and sometimes the very things you need to know the most, negative perceptions, are least likely to be communicated.

If you do know how irritating or attractive you are, it’s probably via direct or indirect feedback from others. At work you might find that, despite setting everyone straight on a few issues when you last served on a committee, you haven’t been asked to serve on any since then. If the attributes are positive — such as the fact that everyone likes you or that you’re very attractive — people are more likely to come straight out and tell you about them. If they’re negative, they may forever remain unknown to you.

If you’re tempted to ignore the perceptions of others, don’t! Your body language is outside your own visual field, but others are very aware of them. And your behaviors are, if not similarly unseen by you, understood by you because you (and often only you) know your motivation & reasoning. So others do have clues for their perceptions and attitudes about you.

Even if you think other people are misguided, their perceptions of your character probably do reflect things you do habitually. Once striking set of studies recently showed that a spouse’s ratings of a person’s anxiety, anger, dominance, and solitariness are better than self-ratings at predicting heard disease. The implication: Our spouses are better judges of such traits than we are.

(I think it’s obviously worth noting the traits listed here; that spouses are better better judges of anger & dominance than the person who is angry & dominant. This refers back to the victim’s need to survive and brings up the point that those in an abused person’s support network — from friends & family to doctors, police, social workers & legal professionals — had better trust them when they say his behavior is dominant, threatening, etc.)

When people are asked how long they think their romantic relationship will last, they’re not very good at estimating the right answer. Their friends, it turns out, fare far better. But if you ask people how satisfied they are in a relationship, their ratings accurately predict how long they’ll stay together. In many cases, we have the necessarily information to understand things are they are — but our blind spots don’t allow us to take it into account.

(Yet another reason to really discuss relationships from many angles, including how happy a person is as part of a couple. Doubly important to do so alone when you fear your friend is being abused, so that they can move past the cover story and predictable prediction points of “we’ll be together forever” — which could very well be a taught or fearful response.)

This doesn’t always mean others are right, of course. Sometimes the blind spots are, again, due to the perceptions of others — based on things they observe which do not reflect what’s going on internally with you. This would seem to be especially important at work and when dating, when dealing with people who do not know you very well yet. Since their perceptions will affect how you are treated (no committees, no promotions; no dates or second dates, etc.) it’s important to see what signals you are sending.

Many of us have times when we are misunderstood. People perceive us as cold and unfriendly when we are really just feeling shy, as flirtatious when we’re just trying to be friendly, or as depressed when we’re just tired. Being misunderstood is largely a problem of a lack of information – not communicating effectively with the people around you through your words and body language.

Gosling cites work by Randall Colvin of Northeastern University which indicates that people who are easily judged, those that people just “get,” tend to be extroverted, warm, consistent, and emotionally stable. These traits, called “amplifiers,” tend to increase the expression of other traits as well as the amount of verbal & behavioral information, making them easier to read.

Another trait that makes people easier to “get,” is “blirtatiousness.” Blurters, those who tend to respond to others quickly & effusively, are open books.

Gosling says that if & when you feel misunderstood, you should say & do more. “Even introverts can train themselves to communicate more through their words — telling people directly what they like and how they feel.”

But before you run out there and babble profusely about how you feel, you should know how others perceive you. And the best way to do this is to ask for feedback. And Gosling wants you to ask more than just your mom. *wink* Seek feedback from many others, including at work and, if possible, your enemies. Gosling also recommends using “the cloak of anonymity” that is the internet; suggesting apps like Facebook’s “Honesty Box” or the “YouJustGetMe” app he collaborated in developing.

I suggest you start by considering the obvious. Are you asked to be on committees, invited to parties & events? Are you disappointed that despite all your efforts, you’re still not offered promotions & dates? If you feel you are being passed over or underestimated, then sit down with your friends for some honest talk. Maybe open a bottle of wine first; cuz once that starts flowing, so will the honesty.

The next morning, evaluate what was said and put it in context of who said it and how you perceive them… What can you learn from all of that? And how can you counteract any misperceptions with better communication?

Why Women Opt To Remain Single

A woman goes out with her friends, meets a guy named Dmitri and they talk for “at the most 2 minutes.” She hands him her business card and says call me… These are the voicemails he leaves her (with some images added for video appeal):

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c06pinaKl8o[/youtube]

Got Love Boat Stories?

To celebrate National Romance Week, Princess Cruises has joined with Cruise Critic to conduct a search for real-life love stories that have taken place on the decks of Princess ships; Deanna just wants to impress Captain Stubing. *wink*

This (quick) post is part of the blogathon for Hope For Healing, raising money for & awareness of domestic violence; use this special link to iSearch.iGive.com — clicking it and performing searches will raise money for HopeForHealing.Org.

Is Dating In The Dark Treating Us Like Mushrooms?

You know the old joke, “I must be a mushroom because people keep me in the dark and feed me BS,” right? So when I heard about ABC’s Dating In The Dark, I was suspicious. My verdict? The bad news is that the new reality dating show is unremarkable. But then again, the good news is also that it’s unremarkable.

As far as dating reality shows go — or any reality TV shows, actually — it’s rather refreshing to not watch a show and find yourself becoming pissed off at the exploitation of flesh (Dating In The Dark had the option to take peeps and bare or topless bods, and it didn’t take the usual sleazy route), irate at the mythinformation presented by “experts,” or screaming in anguish at the cruelty of manipulating people’s feelings.

OK, so some of the latter occurs, but that’s just part of dating; people put themselves out there and get rejected.

I don’t want to pick on people (even if those people have put themselves out there for such attention), but I have to say that Christina had attention-seeking bitch written all over her from the get go & so her decision not to continue to see Seth (who is a charming & attractive guy) because he wasn’t GQ cover material wasn’t at all surprising. In fact, by the time we got to her moaning in pain & hurt at the self-discovery that she was the kind or person who would dismiss a caring man who would be there for her — one she had a connection with — just because he wasn’t what the Greeks chiseled in stone, I was peeved. “Why,” I wondered, “would a person put herself on a show about proving appearances don’t matter when she so obviously (and callously) did?” Then the answer came to me: Because she’s not just a conceited bitch who thinks she’s prettier than she is — she’s an attention-seeking bitch who wants to pretend she’s nice and so puts herself on a reality television show.

But honestly, that’s about as typical (and icky) as the show gets for the genre.

There are no freaky-mean twists (like after telling the 6 participants that how they’d paired them off based on pre-show screening compatibility was a joke & tricking them into making then breaking the bonds they were making), no overly suggestive hype — in fact, most of this just proves what most confident & sane people will tell you about dating:

* Chemistry is important; but that’s not all about looks

* People have weird ways (both the down-right odd and the charming versions) of evaluating people, some of which are not suitable for happiness

* “Good looks” are in the eye of the beholder — and while we all see the same thing/people, we sure don’t “behold” the same way.

* Most people need to be directed towards potential mates because they would  otherwise continue to make the same dating mistakes, write-off potential relationships for silly reasons (armpit sweat on a shirt, think a guy is too handsome (intimidating), etc.) — so trust your family & friends to set you up!

* Some people are self-centered & mean; but if you close yourself off to protect yourself from the jerks, you’ll also prevent yourself from learning more about yourself and from discovering other nice people.

All basic stuff, yes; but not unhealthy. And lately, I feel like the world, especially reality TV shows and stupid dating experts, spends too much time ignoring the basic good stuff. But still, it was confusing.

And at the rate the hour long show clipped along, I became even more confused…

With 6 contestants/participants (3 female, 3 male) and ready to see each other about 1/2 way through, I wondered how this could be a series. Were we going to keep them in this living arrangement, force them to continue dating, mate & raise children, get divorces, find new loves, all via furtive visits to the dark room?

But no, Dating In The Dark offers 6 new participants each week.

I’m not sure if I will watch more shows or not; but I won’t suggest a boycott, nor will I make faces at people who say they do watch the show.

Refreshingly Honest Pond Scum

I have mixed feelings about AshleyMadison.com, the “married dating & affairs” site… With a trademarked tagline of “Life is short. Have an affair.” they’re really putting the “tery” in adult dating sites. The adultery dating site even guarantees “an affair to remember.” While I suppose divorce court, public shunning, and loss of respect from your own family are all things you’d remember (literally protecting the guarantee), what the guarantee actually does is offer your money back if you don’t err, have an affair.

According to this article (page 2):

It’s free to become a member and to create a profile and search others. But to chat with another member, a user has to buy credits– $49 for 100 credits (it takes five credits to initiate a chat; subsequent back-and-forth chats are free). For the Affair Guarantee Membership it’s $249 and the Web site will refund your money if you don’t have an affair in three months. “If somebody had a genuine, sincere message and sounded like a nice person, I would send a message back,” she says. “You had to really weed through those who didn’t want what you wanted.”

(And don’t you just love the idea of a person screening requested messages for affairs for “genuine, sincere & nice” people to cheat with?)

Obviously, the whole idea is disheartening. But these people are going to break their vows with or without AshleyMadison.com — and if that means there are less of the lying cheats on other dating sites and social networks, then that’s a good thing. And hey, at least these like-minded cheaters are being honest with one another; they are all saying they are just there to get inside one another’s pants.

Then again, I suppose AshleyMadison.com has its own liars… People who aren’t married who just want a lay. But again, let them stick to fishing in that dirty water with the other pond scum — refreshingly honest pond scum.

Are Dating Messages Too Ambiguous? And What Does That Mean About Rape?

In the journal Personality and Individual Differences (Volume 47, Issue 2, July 2009, Pages 145-149), T. Joel Wade, Lauren K. Butrie & Kelly M. Hoffman present findings of a study on the male perceptions of women’s opening lines. The study, dissected in further detail at PsyBlog, reveals that men prefer women to be very direct — to the point of being boringly blunt. Ladies should ask a man to dinner (#1) as opposed to asking him if he’s busy that weekend (#6); ask him if he’s got a girlfriend (#2) rather than ask about what shows he’s watched (#5).

But the most surprising finding, at least to PsyBlog, was this:

The only surprise is the low ranking of funny or sexual humour. Men don’t seem to appreciate the lewd come-ons suggested by gender stereotypes. This relatively low rating for a jokey approach is another thing shared by both sexes. Previous work by Bale et al. (2006) found that women weren’t particularly impressed with men trying to be funny, despite what we are often told. It seems opening lines are a serious business for both sexes.

This is not surprising to me or readers of this blog — remember when I told you that men, no matter what they say, do not want sexually aggressive women? But it’s interesting to note for another very important reason…

Remember all that commotion & conversation about Steve Ward’s stupid & misogynistic comment on Vh1’s Tough Love? You know, where supporters of Ward’s and those who blamed the victim in the name of Women’s Safety alike declared that Ward’s statement that Arian “would end up raped if she kept talking like that” was accurate and well-intentioned?

These people believe(d) that his (sometimes even admittedly inept) scare tactic was a tool to get Arian (and others) to “wake up” to reality. Of course, they forget that rape is not an act of “misunderstanding” and “misplaced lust” but one of violence; but we’ll ignore that for now and just look at how this study is more proof that Steve Ward is the tool.

Men (and women too), do not find frank sexual talk and humor to be an arousing come-on; it’s actually more of a turn-off.

So there, ladies and gents, you have more proof that wildly sexual talk is less likely to inspire a man to think she’s into him than if she has asked him out to dinner.

And, just to be clear, asking a man to dinner is not a signal for rape. (Heaven help me if any of you argue that point!)

No word, still, on just how direct a woman has to be to communicate that No means No.

So I am still left badgering the point that society needs to condemn acts of sexual violence. We’ll need to say it loud and clear, of course.

Perhaps by way of introduction. “Hi, I’m Alessia and sexual assault and domestic violence are not acceptable.”

I think I’ll get that made on a t-shirt.

Of Abuse & Avatars — And Outrage

At first glance what I’m about to post may seem to be back-peddling on my stance regarding rape (the lengthy debate of which you can follow with these posts); but keep reading, because I think what I’m about to share has a lot more to say about society than what’s presented…

CNN reports on a recent study, lead by Jennie G. Noll of the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Ohio, published in Pediatrics, the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics titled Childhood Abuse, Avatar Choices, and Other Risk Factors Associated With Internet-Initiated Victimization of Adolescent Girls. From CNN’s report:

“Results indicated that abuse status was significantly related to online sexual advances, which were, in turn, related to offline, in-person encounters,” the study says.

The authors say there was no direct link between abuse and offline encounters, but that a history of abuse puts girls at greater risk.

Looking at the girls’ avatar choices, the authors found that girls who present themselves provocatively in body and clothing choices are more likely to have had online sexual advances.

That risk is tied not just to an avatar, but to the overall image a girl projects online, they say. On sites that don’t use avatars, such as MySpace or Facebook, simply compiling suggestive photographs or narrative descriptions can increase girls’ vulnerability, they say.

“Those adolescents who may be unaware of how their appearance might be perceived may not, from a developmental perspective, possess the social sophistication necessary to field and ward off sexual advances in ways that protect them from sexually explicit suggestions,” the study says.

“This may be a particularly important lesson to convey to female adolescents who are especially vulnerable to exploitation and victimization, such as those who have been victims of childhood abuse,” it says.

CNN ends their report with the mandatory, “watch your kids!” mantra.

“Caregiver presence was associated with significantly fewer reports by adolescents of online solicitations,” the study says. “As such, the importance of parental monitoring of adolescent Internet use cannot be understated.”

I’m not against such things; I not only believe in such parental involvement, I participate in it with my own children. But, as Diana Hartman notes, this bland bit of advice might actually be counter-productive when it comes to adolescent victims of abuse:

While the study found “caregiver presence was associated with significantly fewer reports by adolescents of online solicitations,” it is also important to note that 62 percent of females under the age of 18 were abused by someone known to them. Furthermore, in more than half these cases the biological father was the perpetrator.

Hartman ends her fine post with this sentiment:

Instead of studying the girls, the authors might seriously consider the best way to treat them.

I agree — but equally important, where’s the study &/or training of would-be victimizers and exploiters?

Once again, the behavior of victims & potential victims is what is scrutinized and therefore held accountable rather than that of perpetrators.

It’s easy to dismissively wave your hand at such a thought, to poo-poo me with a, “Where are we going to get honest perps from?” But that poo-pooing only leaves us with more of this shit.

We keep identifying victims, defining their behavior as risqué and risky (and doesn’t that just stink of judgment and victim blaming), regurgitating that information to dictate behaviors of potential victims (mainly women), and through it all, we turn a blind eye to the culprits — the very people who need to stop/be stopped.

You might not think this has much to do with adults online &/or adults dating, but honestly, yesterday’s adolescents are today’s adults; has that much changed? I don’t think so.

And today’s adolescents are the adults of tomorrow; are we educating them for the creation of a better world tomorrow?  I don’t think we’re doing that either.

Your Mr. Right May Be Out To Sea

The Emmy & Peabody-award-winning company that produces Project Runway, Top Chef, and other top notch shows, Magical Elves, is currently working on and casting a new documentary series (read: reality television series) for a major television network “about marriage and people looking to get married” — specifically to find a suitor for a “handsome, tall, successful, and charismatic adventurer who is ready to settle down.”

Our chosen guy is a boat captain and dive instructor who frequents the Bahamas and absolutely loves the ocean. He is kind, funny and genuinely hoping to find his better half. Could it be you?

We’re looking for females who fit the following:

30-45 years old
physically fit / active
spiritual
liberal minded
pet friendly
Non-smoker
social
Intellectual
Outdoor / Adventurous
Must love water

Participants with children under 18 will not be considered at this time.

You know it’s all about the ratings-matings game here, more than true love, right? If you’re into that kind of abuse you can apply here, or to Magic Elves directly. (Please tell them Alessia of Relationship Underarm Stick sent you!)

If you wonder just who applies to these sorts of things, you can vote on casting applicants here.

PS Don’t forget to enter my contest!

Maxim Readers In Relationships Met Where?

Continuing my look at Maxim‘s 2009 Sex Survey

An interesting point to note is that of the 45.8% of women who claim to be in a relationship at the time of this survey, 57.3% of them met their current partner via friends. That’s greater than all the other options (18.9% at work, 10.8% at bar or club, 13% online *) combined.

Granted, that list isn’t every possible way for singles to meet, but I think the heavy dip towards introduction by friends proves my point that meeting people through people you know (aka having friends and a social life) works. And that the fact that your friends know & approve of these guys makes dating more likely to turn into relationships; this pre-screening makes these matches more acceptable to your support network and that increases your success as a couple.

This is not to say that there is no other way, but the old traditional methods still apply to dating today.

Meeting through friends means those in the group will have a greater number of things in common. Not just social activities and interests either. Compatibility has as much to do with similar religious, economic, social or class backgrounds, and other cultural issues (the roots of “values,” if you will), which means that your “at home” feeling with one another is more than just the bond of the familiarity of the faces in your social circle.

So hook up through your friends already.

* Click the scan to read the bit titled, Internet Hating; it’s as much a warning as it is a hoot to read. (Unlike my nemesis publication, Cosmo, Maxim‘s humor is spot-on, not kitsch.)

Better Fish In Another Pond?

You got the looks, the career, the car, the social network — everything but Mr. Right and you want him!!

If you’re female, age 25 to 40, single, attractive and successful in every aspect of life except one… If you’ve ever had that feeling that Mr. Right is out there but not where you live… That there are other fish in the sea — but you’re on the wrong shore… That if you could just leave town, go to another state, you’d meet that perfect guy? If this sounds like you — or someone you know — you’ll be interested in what ABC Media Productions has planned.

Right now, they’re casting for a new reality special called Holidate to be broadcast this fall on SOAPnet. Sort of like a Wife Swap for singles and the Cameron Diaz, Kate Winslet, Jude Law, & Jack Black film Holiday, Holidate will arrange for two single women to temporarily swap locations, live at the other’s home, date men in the other woman’s social circle, etc., and stay in touch with one another on their “journey to find love” in this search for better fishing.

The show will provide all the details and the plane ticket; you just have to believe in love, be willing to have your attempts at love be broadcast on television, and, of course, risk the giant “what ifs” of what happens if you do find Mr. Right and have to work out a long distance relationship & the pragmatic stuff of just who moves…

(Maybe that’s the topic of SOAPnet’s next reality special?)

To apply or nominate another single woman for casting in the special, please submit your name, age, occupation, city & state, along with a recent photo &/or MySpace or Facebook page link to HolidateCasting@yahoo.com. You may also contact the casting directors directly: Ulysses Lee (singleladiescasting@yahoo.com) or Kristina Gorolevich (KristinaCasting@yahoo.com). Or you can use this handy online form.

As always, please tell folks that Alessia of Relationship Underarm Stick sent you. Thanks!

Of Labeling, Limiting & Running Your Fingers Down Some New Spines

Andi (of Outer Limits — a most fun blog), has an excellent post: lesbian fiction, or does this book make me look gay? (Who doesn’t get sucked into reading with a title like that?!)

Her discussion (similar to this round-table: Labeling Lesbian Fiction Debate) centers on the issue of whether or not it is a service, a disservice, or a meaningless point, to label works of fiction as “lesbian.”

I’m straight (but not narrow), so maybe my opinion doesn’t really count — but I’m not afraid of books or movies or TV shows or whatever with lesbians or gay or trans folk. If people want to play Guess The Reader’s Orientation By Her Book Purchases (Or Reading Habits), that’s their little game & I don’t care. Besides, they’d be puzzled anyway.

I think separating books by “character orientation” is as silly as categorizing them by marital status. So if we have “Gay Mysteries”, “Bisexual Westerns, “Trans Literature” and “Lesbian Sci-Fi” then why not have “Celibate Sci-Fi” (maybe that’s redundant? lol), “Old Maid Romance” (err, that fits some people who confuse fantasy fiction with real life expectations for relationships) and “Heterosexual Monogamous Adventures” (if strictly read in the missionary position, it’s surely an oxymoron)… Though “Married & Not Getting Any Mysteries” might actually be found in self-help. Heh.

I joke, but I’m serious about segregating books based on character orientation. What’s next, stories with African American characters can only sit on shelves at the back of the store? Because that’s what these categories feel like to me; just another way to label and limit.

A good detective story, adventure, or love story, is a good read no matter what labels the publisher or Barnes & Nobel clerk assigns the book in the shelving process. Fictional characters & their stories are no more limited to their orientation — or gender, race, marital status, religious beliefs, political party or any other label — then real people are. When you categorize, label, and therefore limit the fictional people, you are inches away from limiting the real people.

Which brings us to dating.

While it’s good to know yourself and know the characteristics you’re looking for & even require in a mate, it’s ridiculous to categorize, label and limit potential dates — you’re only limiting yourself.

OK, so maybe being totally, inflexibly straight &/or Republican means you may have limit yourself in a category or two.  But it doesn’t mean you need to ignore a million other people by the labels they have or the labels you think they have.  Meeting other people means you’ll be exposed to more characters, more stories.

So go ahead, run your fingers along a few spines outside your typical categories; see what new characters you find and what new stories you’ll have to tell.

The Science Behind My Personal Seduction

I finally was able to get in to take that questionnaire regarding Friday night’s Science of Seduction show (the show must have been popular because I had a heck of a time logging in and getting the question pages to load — most frustrating).

First of all, I should say that like many such quizzes, I was frustrated by the all or nothing options for reply; why can’t they offer that middle road option of “neither A or B” or “I don’t feel strongly about any option”. And the language/phrasing is sort of ridiculous — “I laugh with my partner ‘Always'”?! Even when he’s sad? I don’t think that’s a real option. Fully aware that these absolutes, no matter how silly &/or frustrating, allow for easier computations, I proceeded. But I just had to vent (and perhaps warn those of you who feel likewise about such things).

Now onwards, to the results…

While watching the show, my first instincts were that I would be a Director — or at least have strong enough Director tendencies to warrant them appearing in my results. But maybe that was Old Me; I’ve surely changed over the years. (Which too brings up the subject that we do change, and so what does that say about biology? It must be more fluid than fixed, right?) Anyway, I did not receive any Director notes in my findings.

Instead I’m an Explorer with a side dish of Negotiator.

OK, so I totally can see myself as a combination between Angelina Jolie and Bill Clinton. And I’m guessing both of them figured they’d have some Director results too.

Since I’m not dating, but happily married, the only way I could really attempt to evaluate this scientific belief system was to get the husband involved. So I make him take the test when he returned home from work.

The husband was deemed Primarily a Builder, with secondary Director traits. Because he is even more jaded about such personality tests than I am (and had not seen the show, so he thought we were suppose to match in our findings), his response to hearing my results was to jokingly say, “So we’re going to divorce?”

I told him then that Builders are to fit with other Builders, Explorers with other Explorers, and that Directors and Negotiators are to fit together well. His reply was the sardonic, “So we’ll only get a quarter of a divorce then.” I’m not sure that math is right (I’m thinking it’s half non-matching); but at least his reaction was similar to mine: We are not doomed no matter what these quiz things say.

In reflecting upon our likelihood of relationship success based upon biological anthropologist Helen Fisher’s theory, I’m not exactly convinced.

Not only do I remain skeptical about the findings (I still feel I am a Director of sorts; and the husband’s Director status leaves me puzzled, frankly), but I don’t think the theory is any more sound than astrology — or Myers-Briggs. Maybe that’s a part of my non-conformist Explorer self.

But should the science be more accurate than my faith in it, I do think there are things to learn here.

For example, the husband is far more traditional that I; it’s something that rears it’s argumentative head from time to time when we approach problems and plan activities. And maybe that Director thing — even my thinking I am one — is part of our troubles in final decisions; I sometimes do feel that my solution is less accepted because I’m more intuitive, even in my logic (I don’t have flip charts to present to him). So I can see where a couple could use this information to negotiate problems.  Such information could prove useful when navigating problems — if you can use the science to remove the “personally” from “personality” and thereby feel less judged.  Then maybe you can relax in the knowledge that your partner’s traits are their traits; not a sign that you’re wrong.

Of course you’ll still have to deal with your differences.

For those dating, knowing more about yourself and the kind of persons more likely to suit your type can help spare you some heartache.

20/20’s The Science of Seduction: Why Him, Why Her?

Live blogging 20/20’s show The Science of Seduction: Why Him, Why Her?

When I first heard about the show, which is sort of based upon biological anthropologist Helen Fisher’s book Why Him, Why Her? — a book which claims there are personality types — I thought, “Well here’s another form of astrology.” I won’t say I hate astrology; those daily things suck, but the general overviews are slightly informative. Then there’s Chinese astrology etc. So maybe these are some basic bits of information on personality, but what about personal experiences? I know far more women who are happily married to ‘men just like their dads’ then perfect astrology matches.

But after hearing of the research and science behind, I’m more intrigued…

I don’t think we are any more trapped by biology than we are the stars or family patterns. However, I think I want to check out this book and see if it is perhaps yet another layer — another framework among several. And when you lay each over the other, you end up with a complicated, yet far more accurate image of how we seek , who we find, and what we end up with.

Part of the television program also included being ‘damaged’ or insecure regarding relationships based on former experiences, opting to show professional matchmakers as a means to find love, or at least meet people. It wasn’t very helpful as far as remedies to your fragile belief in dating & relationships, but there was something very informative in this segment. The matchmaker said, “Many people say they want love, but aren’t ready for love.” I found that to be the most important part of that segment. It was too bad that 20/20 edited it to look as if the matchmaker was defensively using this as an excuse for not having perfect performance.

On the flip side, 20/20 erred in the next segment their aired. It was on arranged marriages, and rather than focusing on the wisdom provided by the expert who mentioned that a huge key in the success of Indian arranged marriages was the ceremony which clearly put an emphasis on the investment of both the bride & groom’s families and their communities to make such marriages work; 20/20 ended the segment with the small percentage rate of divorces in India, leaving out the plethora of cultural differences which can also account for such disparity. Leaving that as the last word, rather than the insight into total family & community commitment to the couple’s success, left me lingering on more negative, less helpful facts.

Second to that, were the damning statements about love as depicted in song and film (something covered in that study I’m participating in).

Ah, so at the end, the expert, Helen Fisher, does agree with me that love & romance are far more complicated than it sounded at the beginning. *wink*

I’m off to take the questionnaire to see “what I am” — and I think I’ll make the husband do it to. Then I’ll have more to say.

Vintage Fortune-Telling: Love & Romance In The Cards?

I’ve got this old book, Fortune-Telling by Cards, by Professor P. R. S. Foli (aka Sir Cyril Arthur Pearson). My copy is an old hardcover edition published by R. F. Fenno & Company.

One of the chapters has silly little rhyming divination poems for each card in a regular deck of cards and I thought it would be a hoot to post these as a semi-regular feature here, starting with the overview at the beginning of the chapter:

There are those to whom the more elaborate forms of fortune-telling by cards may seem a trifle wearisome, or possibly too intricate to be followed without a somewhat exhausting effort of attention.The method which we give in this chapter has the advantage of being at once simple, diverting, and varied.

As the rhyming significations concern both sexes, a great deal of fun can be provided where there is a party of young people, and who can tell whether the long arm of coincidence may not use this old-time practice to bring some loving pair together?

Take a new pack of cards, or at any rate one in which there are no tell-tale marks on the reverse sides, and spread them face downwards upon the table. Before any one draws a card, he or she is requested to close the eyes, place the right hand on the heart, and say, “Honi soit qui mal y pense.” The card must then be drawn with the left hand, and its meaning will be read by the one who holds the key contained in the verses which we now give.

I just know that you’re just dying to begin play — but be patient, my little love bunnies! I’m only giving a tip at a time. The first card rhyme will be posted tomorrow, but after that, you won’t know just when…

And yes, this is a shameless way to get you to keep visiting.