The Pressured Dating Game

Monday, February 16th, 2009

My blog friend Robert Stacy McCain sent me a link to his latest article, where he admonishes a young man for his blown chance at a suitably smart hottie. He probably thinks I am never going to link his piece, but that’s not true. I’ve been pondering it, instead.

Robert’s article coincides with a dear friend’s search for a good man. I recounted how, at the end of her date on Friday, the guy leaned in to give her a good-night face lick. I am not kidding. And as if that insult wasn’t enough, the man requested that she bite his neck and scratch his back. He was divorced (huh, I wonder why), professional and good looking. What in the hell?

Perhaps with the advent of technology or the decline in formal social protocols or the increase and ubiquity of porn or the elevation of the pop culture, people have just lost the ability to know what to do on a date. Note to men: face licking is a no-no. In fact, I feel safe in saying that if you take face licking out of your whole wooing repetoire, no one is going to complain.

One of the problems with online dating is the false familiarity it can provide. A person can share intimate details, have good conversations in that format, but there’s no accounting for in-person chemistry. And then, once in person, there is a tendency to be over-familiar. The physical part of the relationship can be too much too soon. Just because one person on IM feels the vibe doesn’t mean the other person does.

I know of successful dating outcomes from online dating. In fact, I’m thinking of two happily married couples right now. So, the method works for lots of people and works well. There are advantages, too, to learning how a person’s mind works before seeing the body.

When a person meets face to face, the mind connection can get lost in the body chemistry data. The problem these days is that people don’t give themselves enough time in person to get to know the mind. More than a few relationships fail because the chemistry brought a couple together but that’s all that’s there.

So it seems like there’s a dichotomy. Guys like Robert mentions have trouble “closing the deal”, but why is there pressure? He meets her. He likes her. She likes him. They can continue the conversation…that’s all dating really is. In this rushed world, time pressure, business, activities of life interfere with relationship building. Ironically, the pressure to move a relationship into the physical realm often short-circuits the inherent pleasure of getting to know someone and connecting with them. Online dating can help or hurt this process. So can in-person dating.

Dating has always been challenging, but it seems that in the deluge of busy-ness and information, relationships often stay in the superficial realm. Relationships are treated as snacks to nibble on and a good full meal rarely gets experienced. That’s how you can end up with so many unmarried young women and so many men who have trouble “closing the deal”. There’s too much pressure–time, cultural, sexual–all the way around.

Why Are Women Always Last To Approve Of Other Women?

Thursday, January 29th, 2009


Name the minority. Just think of one. At one time or another, that minority–Irish, Italian, Black, Mexican, Cuban, etc.–has taken the back seat to the more prominent, and usually earlier, American immigrant majority.

And yet one group, no matter the color, who always follows: Women.

Sarah Palin’s mistreatment this last election at the hands of the Left, the Press, and mostly, women generally, revealed the sexism and hypocrisy of a big chunk of the electorate. So, Sarah is back in Washington today to talk at the Alfalfa Dinner. What caught my attention in The Politico’s article was this:

Comprised of mostly older white men, the group didn’t induct women until 1993. Blacks were only welcomed in the 1970s.

Presidents, though, almost always attend and speak.

This isn’t a sporting club or a golf club, where guys get naked together in steam rooms. This is a political club that everyone attends. Blacks were welcome 20 years before women.

During the election, both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin were subject to vicious, sexist attacks. In Sarah Palin’s case, much to my chagrin, she was savaged by many a conservative woman. She was “too young” or she should “be with her children” or she should have “done a better job with her daughter” or she was “too beautiful” or she “talked funny” or she should “be home with her husband.”

Women stand in the way of equality. In order to justify their own work-parenting-spousal-career choices, they must make themselves right and everyone else wrong. This behavior is bad enough in Mommy and Me play dates, it’s worse, when the cattiness eliminates good potential candidates.

Are American women willing to continue their inane double bind and risk losing out on America’s potential Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Benazir Bhutto, or Golda Meir?

The sexist men’s clubs tend to jump out and grab our attention. Women were only admitted in 1993? Wow. But the real stumbling block for a woman politician’s success is other women. They hold women candidates to standards they would never hold a man to. It’s time for women to let themselves off the hook and realize there is no “perfect” way to balance work and career. The Presidency is a sacrifice for all families who join their parent in the Oval Office. It is public service.

A woman could do the job. They have a few years to get used to the idea:

And aside from the real thing, club members always nominate a mock candidate for the highest office in the land. The “nominee” is then required to give an acceptance speech.

Should Palin be this year’s lucky nominee, she’ll be in good company: Three honorees have actually gone on to actually become president – Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Know–UPDATED

Thursday, January 15th, 2009

How big of a deal is it that there are gay people serving in the military? From Repurblican:

There are Americans of many stars and stripes that are in our Armed Forces, and among the many things President-elect Obama could do to really attack our Services — such as characterizing military operations in Afghanistan as “air-raiding villages”, promising to cut tens of billions from defense spending potentially totaling up to 25% of its current budget, etc. — the extinguishment of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, in my book, ranks low on the list of possible slights.

Anything that interferes with military effectiveness shouldn’t be encouraged, in my opinion. For example, I don’t find it problematic that women are in the service. However, if they can’t carry a load or slow down their brothers-in-arms, that’s a problem. Political correctness should NOT have any place in the military. Lives are at stake and lives depend on trust, reliability and ability to do the job.

I have a feeling that there are going to be many things to fight with Barack Obama about when it comes to the military. I’m just not sure if Republicans should make removing the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy one of them.

Cross-posted at RightWingNews


Former military man and Austin blogger Robbie Cooper has some thoughts:

Rescinding the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy will adversely affect recruiting — at a time when our nation is fighting to wars, and is engaged with a global Islamic threat that is not going away any time soon.

up to 10% of our current troops won’t re-enlist. Countless other Conservative and Christian men and women (again — the core demographic of our military) might not choose to enlist because of this policy.

A Place For Ugly Girls

Tuesday, August 19th, 2008

I read this article and had to share it. The political incorrectness is delicious:

The mayor of an Australian outback mining town has come under fire for urging unattractive women to move in, assuring them they will find a man because there is a shortage of women.
John Moloney, mayor of Mount Isa in northwestern Queensland, told a newspaper his town was a place for “ugly ducklings to flourish into beautiful swans” and called on the “beauty-disadvantaged” to flock there.

In the face of outrage over his remarks, Moloney stood by his comments, saying he did not mean to cause offence but wanted to highlight the gender imbalance in the remote town of some 25,000 people.

“Well I said beauty disadvantaged,” he told national radio. “Now beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Beauty can be a good set of teeth, beauty is nice wavy hair. Beauty can be blue eyes or green eyes.

“There is such a thing as disposition, temperament, manners, general attractiveness, attitude and demeanour, all those things tend to make a person attractive.”

My, my. So, in a place that’s like Alaska–remote and male-dominated–the mayor is asking the ugly women, “beauty disadvantaged” (snort), to move on out where they’ll have a chance. Oftentimes, it tends to be the butch women who like braving the butch climes. I don’t see what everyone is upset about.

Cross-posted at