Boo-Hoo, Poor Wife-Beater Complains

I was going to write a rabid response to this bozo who wrote into “Since You Asked” at Salon, whining that it’s unfair that he should have to worry about his current girlfriend’s response to discovering that he — on more than one occasion — abused his former wife:

On half a dozen occasions, during the first few years of my decades-long marriage, I physically abused my wife. This abuse, and the years we went without discussing it, was one of the factors that led to our recent divorce. The divorce itself led me into therapy where I was able to understand my reasons for the abuse, and the effect it had on both my wife and our relationship …

Currently, I’ve started seeing someone else and this woman means a lot to me. Our relationship is at a point where we’ve started talking about sharing a future together; however, I haven’t told her about the abuse in my previous relationship. I want her to know because it’s part of my past — albeit a very painful, unflattering part — but I believe that she may leave me once I tell her. To complicate matters, my ex-wife, in a bit of uncharacteristic malice, has announced her intentions to tell any woman I might be in a relationship with about the abuse at their first meeting.

So, I’m scared and confused. I want to tell my girlfriend about my past, but also want her to understand that she’s not at risk of being abused. And ideally, she would choose not to dump me.

But when I discovered that Heartless Doll had posted such a good response, I figured I should save my efforts for an issue/occasion when I’m more needed. You should go read her entire post, but here are her much applauded highlights:

  • Anyone with a history of abuse who thinks they are an “ex” abuser is a holy-cow-you’re-pretty-much-about-to-do-this-again-abuser, not dissimilar to the “ex” alcoholic who believes she can have “just one.”
  • Not disclosing a violent (and probably controlling) past to someone who has a vested interest in knowing whether or not you’re violent and controlling is … violent and controlling.
  • Not wanting to “get dumped” is a bad reason not to tell someone the truth about a history of abuse. Because she will find out, and then you will definitely be dumped.
  • An ex-wife who refuses to stay silent about your abuse is not exercising “malice.” She’s “refusing to continue be a victim” so that you can “bone some girl.”

13 Dating & Relationship Tips You (Should Have) Learned From Your Friendships In Junior High

thursday-13

“Don’t take your partner/spouse for granted.” We hear that all the time, but what does that really mean? It means treating your lover — and other family members too — with the same respect and kindness you show your friends. (And don’t forget to demand the same in return!)

If you aren’t sure what this means, ladies, remember back to those unspoken rules you (painfully) learned in junior high. Here are 13 reminders of them (in the order they popped into my head.)

#1 Gossip and assumptions are dangerous things, often motivated by people around you who have an angle; be as suspicious of the one who brings you “news” about your romantic partner as you are of your romantic partner.

#2 While first impressions may matter, it’s more about the person than their looks. Haven’t we all a BFF, now or back in the day, who was unable to afford the latest fashion trends, had bad taste in clothes (didn’t know how to dress to impress — or didn’t care to!), had horrible skin, or some other sin or appearance but is/was the very definition of a best friend? Don’t knock a potential partner because he or she wouldn’t appear in a slick glossy magazine — you might miss the romantic best friend you’ll really have forever.

#3 Sucking up to the cool kids never works; or at least it’s a brutal thing to do to yourself. Be friendly, make yourself accessible; but glomming on or inserting yourself where you are not welcome only makes you the butt of jokes while demoralizing yourself.

#4 Make the effort to stay connected. You probably don’t need to take the call-them-everyday-after-school approach when you first meet them (that goes for texting etc. too), but you do need to put effort into the relationship. It’s not just that you call them during a crazy work week to let them know that you are alive; your call says you care to know that they are still alive.

#5 Show an interest in them. No one liked that girl who made everything all about her all the time; no one will like her now. Dates are opportunities for each to learn about the other. Don’t monopolize; take advantage of the time to learn about this new person in equal measure to allowing them to discover you. When you live together, make an effort to focus on your partner that is equal to your expectation to be paid attention to.

#6 Trust is earned, not blindly given. Actions, then as now, speak louder than words. Dating is also about spending enough time together to build trust. (And when you are in a committed relationship, your actions still speak louder than words.) Value the sacred trust of secrets and shared intimacies — and demand the same. Start with small confessions and as they are held sacred, slowly increase what you divulge. (The same is true for physical issues of proximities and intimacies — yup, that means sex! This preferably after trust has been earned in other ways.)

#7 Forgive and forget is an expression stated as a sentence, but in reality it’s multiple choice question; sometimes you can & should do both, sometimes you will choose one, and sometimes grievances are too large for either. Effort on the part of both parties is required and time will be both the test and the tell.

#8 Time heals all wounds. On Friday you were writing in your journal about Jane’s crimes, using words your parents didn’t know you knew; on Saturday you were begging to sleepover at her house. Emotions of the moment are best vented, explored, and examined overtime with a zeal equal to the intensity of your feelings. Whether it’s the multiple choice question of forgive and forget, or a matter of swallowing your own pride when you’ve been called upon to face something about yourself, time is required to digest this bitter meal. (Even when you must simply walk away from the relationship, time will heal that wound; the sooner you start, the better.)

#9 When invited somewhere, reciprocate in a timely manner. You know what happened to those girls who only went to your parties, but never invited you to theirs; to those who came to all the birthday parties, but never brought a gift; to those who waited months after sleeping over at your house to have you sleepover at their house — they got axed from the invite lists. Not only should you be mindful not to be only date taker, but remember to be a date maker too. This means suggesting plans as well as being prepared to pay for them.

#10 Be as generous as you can. Like with party invites, it’s just good manners to reciprocate gifts shared — and in a timely manner. I’m not saying that when you are given a birthday gift that you must give them a gift in return, but don’t be a taker. You may not have the means to match a person dollar for dollar, but give something. And do not think of gifts as only those objects which come wrapped in pretty packages either; gifts are also kindnesses, understandings, secrets, and intimacies shared.

#11 Share and share alike only works just so far. Remember how you didn’t want Trish to wear your favorite top — how she called you stingy & jealous too? Well, there are always things that remain solely yours, no matter how close you are to someone else. There’s no reason to give up or share every single thing — including your personal dreams, career, identity — just because you want a close relationship. If they act like Trish, remind them this is normal, healthy, and to get over themselves.

#12 Being supportive doesn’t mean you force the unwilling to talk — or have to provide the solution. There are many ways you cheered-up a friend with problems — even serious problems. Sometimes you listened; sometimes you just sat with them. Other times, you arranged distractions — cracked jokes to get them to smile, invited them over, took them to the mall, or otherwise offered ways to get them temporarily “out” of whatever was trapping them. There are a million little ways to let a person know you care and are there, ready & willing, for them to share. (Similarly, if you aren’t a big talker or sharing isn’t easy for you, be sure to respond somehow!)

#13 Have fun. What’s the point of being with someone who only brings you down? It’s one thing to ride out a tough time, be supportive through a bad circumstance; it’s another to devote yourself and your life to one who makes you miserable.

Get the Thursday Thirteen code here!

Finally, Sexual Assault Tips That Don’t Blame The Victims!

I didn’t write these rules — and neither did Jess McCabe at The F Word, where I found them — but as you see, we’re all supposed to share these rules:

Please distribute this list. Put it up in your place of work, in your university’s library or wherever you think they might be read:

1. Don’t put drugs in people’s drinks in order to control their behavior.

2. When you see someone walking by themselves, leave them alone!

3. If you pull over to help someone with car problems, remember not to assault them!

4. NEVER open an unlocked door or window uninvited.

5. If you are in an elevator and someone else gets in, DON’T ASSAULT THEM!

6. Remember, people go to laundry to do their laundry, do not attempt to molest someone who is alone in a laundry room.

7. USE THE BUDDY SYSTEM! If you are not able to stop yourself from assaulting people, ask a friend to stay with you while you are in public.

8. Always be honest with people! Don’t pretend to be a caring friend in order to gain the trust of someone you want to assault. Consider telling them you plan to assault them. If you don’t communicate your intentions, the other person may take that as a sign that you do not plan to rape them.

9. Don’t forget: you can’t have sex with someone unless they are awake!

10. Carry a whistle! If you are worried you might assault someone “on accident” you can hand it to the person you are with, so they can blow it if you do.

Any tips you all would add?

Tips For Dating A Married Man?!

At HelloBeautiful.com, Von-Anise McCoy posted No Judgement Fridays: Five Tips To Follow When Dating a Married Man. While I applaud the spirit of no judgements, and I certainly agree that a man or woman in a committed relationship is the one doing the cheating (not the one dating the married or previously committed person) and is one who will likely cheat regardless of your individual “yes” or “no,” I cannot applaud this article.

I take great issue with McCoy’s tips for what they represent: agreeing to a relationship with a person committed elsewhere is to agree to center the relationship based on their needs, not your own.

That is a tacit agreement to make yourself secondary, if not worse. And by “if not worse,” I refer not only to the number of your subjugated position on the list, but to the game playing involved.

The whole set-up is abusive — and when you agree to that, you abuse yourself.

Look at McCoy’s rules — spot the degradation, the use (abuse) of others, the game-playing and dishonesty which plagues not the married or committed person, but the one dating him/her and others involved!

You are number two in his world so play your position.

Keep a man and when I say man, I mean another male companion.

Low-income men are not an option.

Never say the three words, “I Love You!”

This last one is an oldie but a goodie: He is never leaving his wife for you, never, ever, ever no matter how much he may complain about their relationship.

The advice isn’t wrong; it’s all sound if you want to play that game. But who wants to play a game that defeats them at every turn, with no chance of winning because the game is skewed to screw them (literally & figuratively) while it panders to the married or taken?

Wouldn’t the best sound advice be to point out to these women just how unfair to themselves dating a married man is?

I agree these women do not need a morality lecture, but wouldn’t these women be best served by advice which points out the truth of their own willingness to settle for less the least for themselves?

In The Cards: Ace of Hearts

It’s been ages since I’ve done one of these! (I guess that’s what happens when stuff gets buried on your desk!) Anyway, here’s another card described in rhyme from Fortune-Telling by Cards, by Professor P. R. S. Foli; this one the fortune for the one who draws the Ace of Hearts:

He that draws the ace of hearts
Shall surely be a man of parts;
And she that draws it, I profess,
Will have the gift of idleness.

vintage-ace-of-hearts

Card from a vintage deck at eBay.

Legislators Need More Daughters

Ebonya Washingon’s paper, Female Socialization: How Daughters Affect Their Legislator Fathers’ Voting on Women’s Issues, was published in the American Economic Review (2008, 98, 1, 311-332). Washington, Assistant Professor of Economics at Yale, describes her illuminating work this way:

Parenting daughters, sociologists have shown, increases feminist sympathies. I test the hypothesis that children, much like neighbors or peers, can influence parental behavior. I demonstrate that conditional on total number of children, each daughter increases a congress person’s propensity to vote liberally, particularly on reproductive rights issues. The results identify an important (and previously omitted) explanatory variable in the literature on congressional decision making. Additionally the paper highlights the relevance of child to parent behavioral influence.

If you aren’t sure yet that you’d like to take the time to read Washington’s paper (the link to the PDF is above), Les Picker, of the of National Bureau of Economic Research, explains it:

How Daughters Affect Their Legislator Fathers’ Voting on Women’s Issues

“Parenting an additional female child increases the propensity of a member of Congress to vote liberally on women’s issues, particularly reproductive rights.”

Economists have long concerned themselves with environmental influences on an individual’s beliefs and behaviors. There has been significant research done on the effects of environmental factors such as neighborhood, peers, parents, and siblings on such behaviors as educational attainment, welfare use, and marriage. The idea that family, and in particular children, can influence parental behavior seems obvious. In fact, psychologists have shown that parenting daughters will increase the parents’ feminist sympathies. However, among economists, the concept of children’s influence on parents has been neglected.

In Female Socialization: How Daughters Affect Their Legislator Fathers’ Voting on Women’s Issues (NBER Working Paper No. 11924), author Ebonya Washington considers whether children can influence parental behavior outside of the household, in the way that neighbors and peers continue to exert influence over an individual’s behavior even when the individual is not in the presence of the neighbor or the peer. The author chooses to examine attitudinal shifts in the political arena, asking whether parenting daughters increases a Congressperson’s propensity to vote liberally on bills affecting women’s issues. Using Congressional voting record scores compiled by the National Organization of Women (NOW) and the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), Washington finds that the presence of female children is a positive and significant predictor of voting on women’s issues.

By turning to the universe of votes recorded in the 105th Congress, she demonstrates that the influence of daughters is most prevalent on a women’s issue for which gender differences are small: reproductive rights. The concentration of the daughter effect in the reproductive rights arena is not surprising, given that past research has demonstrated a link between parenting daughters and liberal beliefs on women’s issues. Reproductive rights is an issue that is thought of as uniquely female; for those voting on reproductive rights, having females in their lives would be particularly salient. A second reason for the pattern of the daughter effect is that reproductive rights are a moral issue. Previous research has shown that legislators are subject to less party pressure and are therefore more free to vote their own views on moral issues.

Washington finds that, conditional on number of children, parenting an additional female child increases the propensity of a member of Congress to vote liberally on women’s issues, particularly reproductive rights. Such a voting pattern does not seem to be explained away by constituency preferences, suggesting not only that parenting daughters affects preferences, but also that those personal preferences affect legislative behavior.

These results suggest that there may be other reverse causalities in the parental/child attitude relationship that should be explored. The results also have a bearing on the body of research on Congressional voting. This paper not only provides a robustness check on the finding that ideology affects legislative voting, it also serves to identify an additional component of that ideology: child gender composition.

Continuing The Domestic Violence Conversation

At Newsweek, Barbara Kantrowitz and Pat Wingert discuss domestic violence:

Domestic violence used to be the problem no one talked about. But in the past few years, the issue has clearly emerged from the shadows. This summer the Obama administration appointed longtime advocate Lynn Rosenthal to the newly created post of White House adviser on violence against women. Around the same time, singer Chris Brown pleaded guilty to a felony after being charged with assaulting his then-girlfriend, Rihanna; the case drew so much negative publicity for Brown that he had to embark on an intensive campaign to revive his image and his career. In an appearance earlier this month on Larry King Live, Brown even added victim to his résumé when he discussed growing up in a violent household himself.

All this attention creates a unique opportunity to find new ways to help the 1.5 million women who are raped or assaulted annually by a spouse or intimate partner, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But what’s the next step?

While the article doesn’t even pretend to have the answers, it is (another) step in dialog on a serious topic. However, when you read the comments you’ll find disturbing proof of how intent people are to down-play the realities of domestic violence in this country.

For every

Society was making progress in stopping domestic violence. Women were better able to access shelter, orders of protection, criminal prosecution of their abusers, divorce, support and the help of the community. As a result the rate of domestic violence homicide went down. This progress has been stopped or at least slowed by a particularly cruel tactic developed by male supremacists who encourage abusive fathers to go after custody even when they had little involvement with the children before the separation. The courts have been slow to recognize and respond to this tactic. Up-to-date research has now established beyond question that the broken custody court system has resulted in thousands of children being sent to live with abusers. Newsweek was one of the few members of the national media to expose this scandal in an excellent article by Sarah Childress. I hope you will follow-up on this subject by looking at the latest research. (Antisexistdad @ 09/17/2009 12:43:16 AM)

there’s a

There are more women in ER for bee stings than domestic violence of any kind let alone ‘blookdy pulp’. This article was for the sexist hysteria crowd. The author is no different than the birthers.” (eplurbis @ 09/19/2009 6:31:22 PM).

Read, cry, vomit, then discuss. Because if we stop at crying, or try to avoid vomiting by avoiding the subject, then we stop the conversation and let the problem continue.

Being Frank About Female Insecurity

“If I had as many love affairs as you give me credit for, I would be speaking to you from a jar at the Harvard Medical School.”
~ Frank Sinatra ~

Ahh, Frank. Everybody loves the Frank. Or at least he was convinced of that.

Is anything as suave & steeped in romance as Frank crooning to you as you eat spaghetti? Maybe… But at least you like pasta, right? Or at least eating…? No? Well, you can’t please everybody.

So even if Mr. Sinatra had as many women as rumored, he wouldn’t have pleased all of them either. And he likely wouldn’t have cared.

But women care. We can please 4,566,782 people, and we worry about the one we didn’t please. Why is that?

Thinking about all that just makes me want some pasta. Or Frank, crooning in my ear as I swirl around a dance floor…

…I hope I dance well enough… that guy over there is looking at me funny…

See? Even in my fantasies, someone isn’t thrilled with me.

That’s why, I guess, we see women’s magazines & television talk shows pander to and exploit female insecurities. Even while they profess to be helping women get over their self-loathing, they sensationalize — ridiculing the person, mocking the appearance of the body part they already are insecure about. Sometimes they even make fun of the women who are proud of the way they or their body part appears. Just look at these casting calls from the past two days:

Can a Snuggie or long nails or body fat really be such a relationship problem? I argue that whoever thinks these things are (or can be) relationship problems is the one with a real problem. And I don’t say that glibly.

Whoever gives the status of the Snuggie so much importance that it not only becomes a “constant source of arguing in your home” but you’d be willing to go on television and argue it some more clearly has a carnival-fun-house-mirror view of reality.

If this is how you see yourself, you have a toxic relationship with yourself.

If this is how you see and treat your spouse, you have a toxic relationship with them.

And clearly the media that exploits these people for (they hope!) the money in our pockets has a toxic relationship with their guests and their audiences.

And if you can see just how distorted that is (and I pray that you do!), then you ought to be able to replace the word “Snuggie” with “hair,” “weight,” “fingernails,” or whatever silly appearance-obsessed insecurity-driven show topics show up in casting calls later this week.

I refuse to watch these shows, to prey on the insecurities of others as entertainment. And whenever someone in my fantasies starts to look at me funny, I give them the boot.

I may not be as full of myself as Sinatra was; but I sure as hell won’t be so insecure with myself (or my spouse, for that matter) that I’d consider myself freakish enough to participate in one of these shows — or be in a jar at the Harvard Medical School.

Who Came Last, Brad Pitt Or Your Eggs? Maybe It Was You…

This economy has everyone worried about money, and more results from that sex survey in September’s Health magazine prove it.

According to that survey, women think men would rather have more money (53%) than more sex (47%). (My husband asks, “Why not more of both?”)

And a whopping 89% of the women asked aren’t above admitting that they’d prefer a $1,000 bonus at work over sex with Brad Pitt. As one respondent, “Katrina from Scottsboro, AL,” put it, “Brad Pitt would be nice, but I’m sure $1,000 would last a lot longer!”

I’m not sure if that’s a slight against Mr. Pitt, or if Katrina doesn’t have a large balance due on her electric bill, car loan, or MasterCard… In most cases, a phone call to make a payment on any bill — even with waiting on hold &/or pressing the keypad in response to prompts — lasts less than 4 minutes. I suspect Brad lasts longer than that; Katrina, I think you owe him an apology.

Anywhooooo…

The Health survey also reveals that 30% of (their surveyed) women would sell their eggs in a money crunch. And they aren’t talking about their hen’s eggs, either.

Apparently, the women Health surveyed came in a little under recent figures: “Our calls have just about doubled,” says Robin von Halle, president of Alternative Reproduction Resources in Chicago.

But the question was, “Who Came Last, Brad Pitt, your eggs, or you?” and sadly, it’s “you.” Or the women who took this survey anyway.  Because when asked to choose between financial security or orgasms every time they”do it,” 80% of the women opted for the money.

According to one “Susan” from North Carolina, she’s “perfectly happy with orgasms every other time!”

Uh, these poor women must not be having the orgasms I’m having.

I’d not trade my orgasms for money or “financial security” or all the money in the world.  In fact, my quality of life is directly tied to my ability to get off. Money may be a necessary evil; but there’s nothing evil about my orgasms.

Maybe Susan et all are “perfectly happy” with every other time… Maybe that’s a dream for them… Maybe they don’t know how to achieve their own orgasms by themselves… I don’t know. But it sure explains why they would turn down sex with Brad Pitt — even in a fantasy question. I know I can get myself a whole lot more “happy” just thinking about that than I can fantasizing about spending one grand.

(As usual, you can click the image to get a large scan.)

sept-health-4

Money & Career Woes Affect Sex Lives (Who-da-thunk!)

More from that What’s Sexy Now survey published in the September issue of Health magazine, the surprising reveal that only 25% of women claim to have used sex to get their partner out of a money or career funk.

I find that very hard to believe. Not because women are manipulative, but every relationship expert and mental health professional knows that the endorphins from sex lift spirits and personal connections bond & build already secure relationships — sex is quite often a helpful, healthy suggestion for what ails people in monogamous sexual relationships. And the question is “have tried,” not “were successful.

If these women didn’t out-and-out lie, and it’s a strong possibility, it’s only because a “money or career funk” is actually depression for most men — and when men are depressed, their sex drive takes a big dive. Men’s self-image and identities are very connected to their work; their self-worth is directly connected to their libidos. Further proof lies in the survey results in which half the respondents (or their men) gave the old “Not tonight, honey” because of work and/or money worries.

Click the image to read more results from the survey.

sept-health-3

Health Reader Survey: What’s Sexy Now?

In this month’s issue of Health, reader survey results on the subject of sex.

sept-health-mag-sexy-now

Some survey results (and my comments):

75% believe that it is cheating to have a secret e-mail relationship with an old flame

I do believe the “secret” part is a problem, as it connotes an attempt to cover-up. My husband never asks me who I email… If I would be emailing with a former boyfriend or lover, would that mean I would be lying or keeping a secret by omission? Or does his not asking just mean he doesn’t care about my endless emailing? *wink*

34% are friends with an old boyfriend on Facebook or another social networking site

Please note that this apparently includes being friended by one’s 8th grade boyfriend; call me old fashioned, or just plain old, but one’s 8th grade boyfriend is a rather harmless — near forget-able relationship, online or off.)

33% are keeping the social network friending of old boyfriends a secret

If it’s the 8th grade or high school varieties, it isn’t the fear of a “wildly jealous husband” that keeps you mum, it’s the embarrassment, dears.

64% say they “absolutely do not” mention their sex lives via Twitter or other social media site, saying it’s “a perfect example of TMI” — yet 29% “might” read someone else’s “sex tweets”

I suspect this has more to do with people “marketing” aka spamming themselves via Twitter et all and therefore aren’t showing any real aspects of themselves to begin with. But how can your sex live be any more ridiculous than discussing your love or reality television? And perhaps more importantly, how can tweeting about your sex life be any less alienating, personal and off-putting then disclosing your politics or religious preaching? Now that’s too much information.

sept-health-2

(As always, click the pics for larger scans.)

Now this next one (the last one I’ll cover today) is very interesting…

The questions was: Whose affair would be more likely to end your relationship?

The response: 41% said their own affair; 59% said his affair.

Naturally, this discloses that Health has limited it’s questioning to heterosexual couples; uncool. But the question itself, the apparent answer options, and the answers themselves are sort of confusing — not because of the nearly 50-50 split, but because I’m not sure how the respondents interpreted the question… Were they answering that his affair would mean he was ready to move on, so their relationship would end? Or did they mean that they would, selfishly, be (albeit slightly) less tolerant of his affair then they expect him to be of their own?

I’m not sure how I would interpret the Q & A, so I’m completely unclear as to my own answer.

There’s more from this survey, but I’m saving it for later.

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?

What Can Be Learned From Chris Brown’s Light Sentence?

By now you’ve probably heard how Chris Brown barely got his hand slapped for beating up Rihanna; just probation, community service, domestic violence counseling, and a restraining order. This for a man who, as reported by CNN, had two earlier incidents of domestic violence with Rihanna before the more publicized incident in which Brown punched Rihanna numerous times; put her in a head lock, restricting her breathing and causing her to start to lose consciousness; bit her ear and her fingers; and threatened to kill her.

Rihanna’s injuries included cuts and bruises inflicted by a large ring on Brown’s right hand, which he used to punch her, the probation report said.

“Officers at the scene observed numerous contusions and abrasions to the victim’s face and forehead, as well as bruising to her left arm near the bicep,” it said. “They also saw abrasions to her arms near both wrists and on her upper chest near her collarbone and around her neck. There were abrasions on her left leg and on the inside of her upper lips.”

If you want to know how such atrocities can be met with such a lazy legal response, keep reading here at Relationship Underarm Stick; we’ll be going through this subject in great detail. For now though, you may want to consider this poor court response of little consequence to Ryan Jenkins. He had a history of domestic violence & he too was allowed to be free — and he killed Jasmine Fiore. Rihanna should remember this anytime she even considers letting Brown break that restraining order.

Romantic Pillow Talk – Of A Different Sort

Remember practicing kissing and caressing your pillow when you were a teen? Well, there’s a whole movement dedicated to romancing the pillow and other two-dimensional objects in Japan.

According to Lisa Katayama in the New York Times Magazine, there’s a fraction of men in Japan who adopt body-pillow girlfriends and other “2-D” lovers as a substitute for real relationships. These men take their pillow girlfriends out on dates to restaurants, to sing karaoke, to take photo-booth pictures — positioning their stuffed girlfriends gently, “making sure to keep her upright and not to touch her private parts.”

The guru of the 2-D love movement, Toru Honda, a 40-year-old man with a boyishly round face and puppy-dog eyes, has written half a dozen books advocating the 2-D lifestyle. A few years ago, Honda, a college dropout who worked a succession of jobs at video-game companies, began to use the Internet to urge otaku to stand with pride against good-looking men and women. His site generated enough buzz to earn him a publishing contract, and in 2005 he released a book condemning what he calls “romantic capitalism.” Honda argues that romance was marketed so excessively through B-movies, soap operas and novels during Japan’s economic bubble of the ’80s that it has become a commodity and its true value has been lost; romance is so tainted with social constructs that it can be bought by only good looks and money. According to Honda, somewhere along the way, decent men like himself lost interest in the notion entirely and turned to 2-D. “Pure love is completely gone in the real world,” Honda wrote. “As long as you train your imagination, a 2-D relationship is much more passionate than a 3-D one.” Honda insists that he’s advocating not prurience but a whole new kind of romance. If, as some researchers suggest, romantic love can be broken down into electrical impulses in the brain, then why not train the mind to simulate those signals while looking at an inanimate character?

Many single people here in the US might find some of this quite reflective of the culture here; only the display of physical substitutes for romance are less accepted here.

In Japan the fetishistic love for two-dimensional characters is enough of a phenomenon to have earned its own slang word, moe, homonymous with the Japanese words for “burning” or “budding.” In an ideal moe relationship, a man frees himself from the expectations of an ordinary human relationship and expresses his passion for a chosen character, without fear of being judged or rejected.

“It’s enlightenment training,” Takuro Morinaga, one of Japan’s leading behavioral economists, told me. “It’s like becoming a Buddha.” According to Morinaga, every male otaku can be classified on a moe scale. “On one end, you have the normal guy, who has no interest in anime characters and only likes human women,” he explained. “The opposite end, of course, is the hard-core 2-D lover.” Morinaga, a self-described otaku, didn’t have much luck with women until he became a well-regarded economist. Now he has a wife and a private office in a fancy apartment building near ritzy Tokyo Bay. “I’m a 2 — I still like human women better,” he said, a wide grin forming. “But there are many men who are on the opposite side of the scale. I understand their feelings completely. These guys don’t want to push ahead in society; they just want to create their own little flower-bed world and live there peacefully.”

Aside from the large scale physical display & touching, is this any different than the romantic fantasy of soap operas, romance novels, films like Twilight, etc.? I don’t think so. Retreating to a fantasy, love doll, pillow, erotic story ,or dreaming of your own vampire lover is just as sane — or insane, I guess.

Can any be replacements for real human relationships? Can Twilght fandom, eating chocolate, or profuse shopping be as emotionally satisfying as dating? Can rapid page turning of bodice rippers, caressing of printed pillows, or vibrators be as satisfying as real human contact?

Maybe not; but as long as you can tell the difference, know reality from fantasy, they can’t hurt you as badly as divorces, break-ups and rejections either.

That said…

I am creeped-out by the Japanese penchant for underage girls. Most of the Anime characters & other pillow girls seem to be pre-teen & teenage school girls. While that’s disturbing & debatable on it’s own, I don’t find anything wrong with the idea of pillows or 2-D romance per se.

…It’s a bit sad, but no sadder than the girl who buries her nose in a succession of Harlequin romances, downs her emotions in vats of chocolate, etc.

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.

Up & At ‘Em

I am up at 8 A.M. On a Saturday. For the blogathon. About an issue that’s very had to talk about.

I sit here and try to wake up.

My husband is laughing so hard at lolcats on Caturdays I fear he will choke on his peanut butter toast — toast which, by the way, he butters prior to slathering on the peanut butter. Something I and his trying-to-lower-his-cholesterol doctor remind him is not a good idea, but hubby does it anyway…

Which leaves me, as the wifey, to chose between naggin’ him (and all that implies of his reaction to me as “the nag”) and considering life as a widow.

Some choice.

From the sound of his laughter, I’m pretty sure my husband has and continues to suffer from some sort of oxygen deprivation.

This may explain the, ah, immature, developmentally delayed laughter at Caturdays.

And his resistance to addressing his cholesterol issue by only putting peanut butter or butter on his toast.

…Oh, I’m wondering if our marriage will survive this day *wink*

PS use this special link to iSearch.iGive.com — clicking it and performing searches will raise money for HopeForHealing.Org.

I Interrupt National Romance Week For Some News…

At 8:00 A.M. on Saturday, August 15, 2009, Hope For Healing will be hosting their first ever Blogathon — 24 hours of blogging dedicated to raising awareness of & funds for helping victims of domestic violence. And I’ll be participating.

Twolia has generously & graciously sponsored me for this Blogathon & I’ll do everything I can to stay up & blogging for 24 hours. What can you do?

I’m so glad you asked!

* Read what I have to say (I know it may not be easy to read so many emotional & perhaps depressing posts; but if I’m going to pour my heart out along with educating y’all, it would be nice to know you give a crap!)

* Carry on the conversation: Post comments, Tweet, post/link at your own blog, email links to your friends & family — spread the word & let everyone you know how important the issue of domestic violence is to you and that you think it should matter to everyone else too.

* While I/we search for answers, try searching for something online… At the end of each Blogathon post there will be a special link to iSearch.iGive.com — clicking it and performing searches will raise money for HopeForHealing.Org. (Maybe you’ll want to debate me on a point & need some research… Maybe you want to find out just sleep deprivation does, so you’ll better understand the condition of my posts… Maybe you want to see if you can have coffee delivered to me!)

So here’s the deal for this Saturday: I stay up, confessing, educating, ranting (and I bet raving — it will be 24 hours, you know!); you read, you discuss (here, with friends & family at home, &/or out in the internets somewhere), and you perform a search (on any topic you’d like) and I’ll know you give damn about domestic violence.

More about Hope for Healing.Org: A nonprofit located in Strawberry Plains, Tennessee, that works with victims of domestic violence; restores the lives of juvenile offenders; distributes Angel Food, household items and free clothing; and meets some other needs of survivors and their families on a case-by-case basis.

It’s National Romance Week

National Romance Week was established in 1995 by Michael Webb. Set the second full week in August, it’s six moth opposite to Valentine’s Day is by design because Webb intended this week to celebrate romance by focusing on people & relationships — spending time and attention, not money on “things” &/or events, like going out to fancy dinners.

Webb, who does sell romance on his websites, says, “Real romance comes from the heart, not the wallet” — but he does offer free tips, including a free 101 Romantic Ideas ebook to those who subscribe to his free newsletters. So, if you’re stuck for “things to do that show you care,” you can get the generic commonsense tips & give ’em a try.

In this economy, who couldn’t use a reminder that love & romance & need not have a price tag?

My advice, however, is to begin by doing as Web says and focus on the person in your life and think about what pleases him or her specifically. You know, those wishes & requests they make everyday…

From “more sex” to “pick up your socks,” from saying “yes” to the request for a back massage to saying “no” to another invite to dinner during an already busy week, from “put the toilet seat down” to picking the kids up (from the mall, soccer practice, etc.), from letting her have the remote to not acting so remote…

Huh, maybe I should write 101 tips book. *wink*

Preventing Intimate Partner Violence, Is Screening Enough?

According to a recent study, the answer is “No.”

Screening for domestic violence followed by referral to a clinician does not reduce the recurrence of violence among women, according to a study for the the McMaster Violence Against Women Research Group, published in the August 5, 2009, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. (Full text here.) In the published editorial on the study, the authors have this to say:

[This study] should dispel any illusions that universal screening with passive referrals to community services is an adequate response to violence in intimate relationships.

The findings are not overly surprising to me…. And it reminds me of how that “Are you safe at home?” questions is addressed whenever I visit doctors offices, the emergency room, walk-in clinics etc. The question in terms of words varies only slightly (from “Are you safe” to “Do you feel safe” to “How would you rate your sense of safety at home?” etc.), but the manner and tone in which it’s asked varies quite a bit.

For some, it’s such a routine question, it seems as if your answer isn’t even going to register. Others try to toss it in with the litany of other questions, like a sneaky curve ball, hoping you’ll be caught off guard and give away the truth you might otherwise resist. Still others seem embarrassed to ask it — but they are fine with my “dignity” hanging out the back of a paper gown.

I wonder if there have been any studies on how effective the actual questioning aka screening itself is.

Relationship Round Up: Liars & Cheats Edition

#1 People Believe They Have More Restraint Than They Actually Possess. New research from the Kellogg School of Management examines why individuals regularly succumb to greed, lust and self-destructive behaviors — and demonstrates that individuals believe they have more restraint than they actually possess, which ultimately leads to poor decision-making:

People are not good at anticipating the power of their urges, and those who are the most confident about their self-control are the most likely to give into temptation.

So, if you’ve got a guy or gal with fidelity or other issues, you both will need some support — especially if they boast they can control themselves.

#2 The Liar in Your Life. Robert Feldman, psychology professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and expert on lying, says what we think about how and why people lie is wrong — his insights into the world of lying are in his new book, The Liar in Your Life: The Way To Truthful Relationships.

In the book, he debunks the myths and says we’re not only bad at detecting falsehoods, but in fact are strongly and unconsciously willing to believe other people’s lies to make our lives easier — that people aren’t inclined to question the daily interactions they have with family members, or even strangers.

His research also finds that strangers meeting face-to-face for the first time will tell lies three times within 10 minutes, and if strangers meet through a computer conversation, he says, they’re even more likely to lie.  ABC’s got an excerpt, if you want to try before you buy.

Oprah: At Least 6 Years Late On Domestic Violence

The August 2009 issue of O, The Oprah Magazine, has a feature story (beginning on page 154, after the book reviews?!) on how the laws against domestic violence aren’t enforced. The piece, titled “Why Didn’t They Stop Him?” (by Phoebe Zerwick, photographs by Mary Ellen Mark) is an excellent one — and long overdue.

Not only did I pitch this story roughly 6 years ago to Oprah, but the horrible especially because it’s true story of the ordeal of Vernetta Cockerham which resulted in her daughter’s murder is really only half the story.

Every time I start to blog about Oprah and her ignorant stance on domestic violence (she thinks it’s as simple as leaving), I get so infuriated I have to quit; I have 7 posts in draft to prove it. And this one will be short so that I can finally get to posting something without getting so outraged or ill that I cannot continue.

For the past 6 years I’ve contacted Oprah by every means I could find: via her website’s online form, via email, via phone messages at Harpo, and even spoke directly to producers of the show — who told me the half-dozen books and another half-dozen studies on the subject weren’t enough; call back when I published my own book.

Grrr — I’m in the middle of a battle for my own safety & that of my children; the book, and 1 million other things, will have to wait.

Wait for the day someone wants to open their minds to the realities — before another woman &/or her child(ren) dies.

Yes, Oprah, I told you about the Massachusetts study in 2000 which said that as many as 60-80% of restraining orders are not enforced; and I have the personal experiences to prove it. Running from my abuser kinda kept me a bit too busy to write that book.

Yes, I told your staff about the U.S. Department of Justice study that same year which said that arrests were only made in:

47% of the cases in which the victim reported being raped

36% of the cases in which the victim reported being assaulted

29% of the cases in which the victim reported being stalked.

I especially went into great detail about what happens when children are involved in domestic violence cases.

And I emphatically stated how all of this not only results in victims having a loss of faith in the system, how it not only results in keeping victims with their abusers, but how it is further abuse of victims by the system & how it impacts the children involved.

I even offered to put myself at further risk by going on-air to discuss this.

So, while I applaud you for finally getting to the truth of some of the matters involved in domestic violence, Oprah, I wonder why it took you so long? Especially when you had 6 years of my nagging.

I wonder how much longer it will take for you to heed my voice and take up the other issues I have brought to your attention?

And I wonder how many more women & children will suffer & die during that time.

But I guess death just sells more that saving lives, doesn’t it; don’t worry, continue to ignore us, and you’ll have more deaths to put on the cover of your publications.

Oprah, and staff, be prepared for more calls & emails from me.

Sexism Alert: “The Great Male Survey” Results

Last month, AskMen.com (50,000 AskMen.com readers) & Shine (19,000 respondents over a four week period) conducted its second annual online survey, where real women and men answered questions on such topics as online dating, money, careers, soul mates, marriage, romance, cheating, etc.

One area where men really weighed-in differently was the matter of weight gain. Seems fatty-fatty-two-by-four will be kicked out of the couple’s door — by (surprise!) males.

An overwhelming 70% of women responded to “Would you dump a boyfriend if he became fat?” with “No, his appearance does not affect my love for him.” But 48% of men said they would dump their girlfriend. Shocking? No. Superficial? Yes.

While 75% of US men (just a few points off of their male counterparts in the UK, Canada & Australia) and 63% of the women believe marriage “is a necessary institution, and one that I will participate in to help preserve,” there’s something funky going on… I guess marriage as an “institution to preserve” only applies to skinny folks — for men, anyway.

But perhaps most upsetting to me were the results regarding divorce (as in “she’s too fat to remain with me”). When asked, “Do men get screwed by the courts in divorce?” 83% of the men said “Yes.” I guess I’m not surprised to hear men continue to whine about their victimization (as if!), but the women? While the 44% who said, “No, men and women generally get fair and equal treatment,” may seem comforting, look closer and you’ll see that 40% also said “Yes” — 40% of women believe that men are victimized by divorce courts.

Ugh.

I guess these women aren’t really listening to their friends’ divorce stories.

Yet 35% of these whining & irrational men who believed they are treated unfairly by divorce courts say prenups are “Not at all important.” Isn’t that a dumb reaction, to not protect yourself from what you (irrationally) fear?

But that’s only part of the story, really; just look at the questions & results:

For Men:

How important is it to you for your future wife to sign a prenup?

35% Not at all important

33% Not very important

22% Somewhat important

10% Very important

For Women:

Do you want your future husband to sign a prenup?

73% No, I will marry a man who I trust enough to not need a prenup

11% Yes, but I won’t risk jeopardizing our relationship by asking him to sign one

9% Yes, I won’t marry him unless she does

7% No, I’m out to steal his money

And that sexist difference in the survey questions & responses may be the most telling thing of all.

Women too insecure to ask for a prenup? But not the big strong he-man. (He’s just too dumb not to ask, even when he thinks the male created & controlled courts are out to get him because he has a penis. A-duh.) Women asked a question in which they are offered the golden opportunity to self-identify as gold diggers? Where are the men’s sugar daddy responses? And that confusing typo (see 9% female response) — for a minute there I thought they were actually including lesbians. Yeah. Right.

If such sexism was ignored or thought “cute” by the female respondents, then no wonder they themselves are sexist enough in their thinking to believe that men have it bad in divorces.

I do believe now we know why this is called The Great Male Survey; Long Live The Great Male.

*yawn*

Sensationalized Sexist TV That’s Mean To Men?

Have you seen these screaming headlines yet:

Is your boyfriend/husband HAIRY and you are sick of it?? Now Casting

and

America’s Uggliest Husband — Is he yours?

Can you imagine if we saw headlines & programs dedicated to calling women ugly? If we saw casting calls announcing how husbands who were sick of their wives looks could get help — as if it were acceptable?

The media would have a field day, bringing on expert after expert to discuss female body image pressures & concerns & how this sort of valuing females for their looks was abusive. But do it about men? Oh, that’s fine.

Not.

Even if women are taught to be more (self) conscious about their appearance and so are (often) more obsessed with make-overs etc., even if these shows are aimed at a (materialistic  & superficial) female audience who wants to see men transformed back to some snazzier (more romantic novel looking) version of themselves, these sorts of shows are just plain mean.

Double-standards flipped back to bite the sexist stereotypical hand that feeds them BS are not what equality & respect are about.  Physical makeovers and unrealistic romantic notions are not the stuff that gets you through a healthy, longterm relationship. And dragging your mate in for a show which wants to make him less hairy because “you are sick of it” or pronounces him “ugliest” is a sure way to run your relationship off of a cliff.

If you’re really considering such a thing as being on such a TV show, just ask for a divorce, you shameless bitch.  Don’t prolong the guy’s agony, don’t encourage shows like this — and don’t let me hear about it. I have rolled-up newspaper; will travel.

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.

Is He Just Killing Time With You Until The Next (Or Better) Girl Comes Along?

Have you ever wondered if your mate would stray if given the chance? Do you question if you should trust he or she? Have you been dating for a short period of time and question how committed they are to the relationship? Instead of going the mature route, why not put them to the test with hidden cameras — and then broadcast it on television?

Pitman Casting is now casting men and women for a new relationship gameshow which will test your mate’s intentions with the help of hidden cameras.

Mmm, sounds exploitative and humiliating; but if you’re into that sort of a tasty bitter dish, email photos of you and your mate as well as a paragraph about your relationship to: castingmate@gmail.com

Tell ’em Alessia of Relationship Underarm Stick sent you (and sure, tell ’em I mocked it too lol).