The Great Mate Debate

Posted by: Greg and Amiira Behrendt
Topic:  Do long-distance relationships ever work?

No. Never. Not one time. Okay once. Yes of course there have been long distance relationships that have worked but our guess is that most don’t. When people ask us should they get into a long distance relationship we always say, “Better yet, why don’t you get a pen pal then find yourself a mate within driving distance.” Look there is no one way to have a relationship but long distance is almost like not being in a relationship at all. Even with all the new communication technology there is no substitute for being in the same room with someone. It’s like being on hold. Now if the situation is temporary (i.e. work, school, or war related), people can sometimes make it work but if were talking about two people not willing to move to where the other is then I think you are in for a lot of heartache and boredom. Eventually one person is going to want more. Human relationships are progressive and it’s hard to proceed when you can’t see, touch, smell or taste one and other. Most of the emails we recieve about them paint a pretty harsh picture. Are we against them? There are really two kinds of people “Absence makes the heart grow fonder.” And ”Out of sight, out of mind.” If you are the former then perhaps you can handle the struggle that is a long distance relationship. If you are in one and it works for you post a comment tell us how you made it work because we only ever seem to hear about the ones that don’t work and since neither of us was ever willing to do it we don’t know.

Posted by: Wendy Shalit
Topic:  Is there still a double-standard for women? Will a man not respect a woman who has sex very early on in a relationship?

I researched this topic for Girls Gone Mild and the answer I found was a surprising one: the double standard is alive and well--only it's been reversed.   Men who tend to be more sexually conservative are usually admired: "How romantic! How wonderful that you want to wait until you've met the right person!"  Thus was A.C. Green roundly praised for waiting until he was 38 to lose his virginity.   Whereas a 23-year-old woman who is still a virgin will often be publicly stigmatized as "prudish, repressed," you name it. 

If she doesn't want to go to bed by the third date, then "get ready to get dumped" as one teenage girl put it to me via e-mail. 

Our new sexual double standard is a reaction to the old one, but in my opinion, it is a misplaced overreaction that has helped no one. Just as women were once encouraged to postpone sex, now they are pressured to rush into things, just to prove they are not beholden to any outdated notions of feminine restraint. 

Well, I think we need to stop swinging between these extremes, and it's time we upheld a single high standard. It's not a crime to take the time to get to know someone before you're physically intimate.  There's even a lot to be said for it, in fact!

If there are individuals who still feel it's unwise to go to bed on the first date, I would say they are likely not driven by the old standard, since it no longer exists.  Instead, this judgment persists because of plain common sense. 

Posted by: Dan Savage
Topic: Is there still a double-standard for women? Will a man not respect a woman who has sex very early on in a relationship?

This is the Tinkerbell of double standards: it lives only because we believe.

In reality a small minority of men believe that a woman who sleeps with a guy early in a relationship has demonstrated that she's not relationships material—good for a good time, but not a good wife or mother. Yet many women believe that a large majority of men feel this way. I blame sex "experts" that prey on the insecurity of some women by encouraging the worst kind of game-playing—these experts tend to write books packed full of "rules." They keep us clapping for this old & moldy double standard, one which would die the death it so richly deserves if we just stopped clapping so hard for it.

Yes, some men do believe that only men should be able to dog around, have one-night stands, and go to bed with someone on the first date. The question for women shouldn't be, "Gosh, how do I land one of these guys?" but, "Christ, why on earth would I want to land one of these guys?" Because a man with double standards about sex and dating—one set of rules for him, another set for her—has other sets of double standards for men and women about all sorts of things.

A woman that lands one of these guys soon discover that it's okay for him to go out with his friends and tie one on every now and again, but not her. It's okay for him to openly flirt with a waitress in front of her, but not okay for her to even glance at the scorching hot bartender. It's okay for him to wear whatever he likes, but her clothes have to meet with his approval. And on and on.

I'm not saying that women should sleep with men on their first dates—I'm not offering up a sleazier set of rules. (Although I know lots of happily married couples that did sleep together on the first date.) People should do what feels right and appropriate in the moment. Sometimes that will mean waiting, sometimes it won't. But whenever you meet a guy that thinks one set of standards applies to him and another set applies to you, the only right and appropriate thing to do is bolt.

Posted by: Greg and Amiira Behrendt
Topic:  Is there still a double-standard for women? Will a man not respect a woman who has sex very early on in a relationship?

Greg: I’m so glad this came up because the whole idea of this has bothered me for ages.

Amiira: There’s always been a double standard for women when it comes to sex but it’s not just men that hold women to that double standard. Women do it too.

Greg: Why is that? And why does anyone care who’s sleeping with who when unless it directly affects them personally?

Amiira: Because people (that means both men and women) are secretly jealous of other people that allow themselves the freedom to boldly jump out of the confines of what is prescribed to be proper.

Greg: Could be. The thing I don’t get is where respect is the cost of being sexually liberal.

Amiira: I’m so with you. What jack*ss would no longer respect a woman he’s slept with early on yet still have any self respect for having participated in the very same romp that he’s holding her in judgment for?

Greg: I was going to make that point myself. But I don’t think it’s respect that is at stake or at least I don’t think that’s what it is anymore. I think it’s just that guys lose interest when they get to have sex with someone too soon.

Amiira: Bingo. It’s not a matter of respect that kills things it’s that the chase is over too soon that does it in.

Greg: I’m telling you, no I’m typing at the top of my lungs to anyone who can hear me that SEX CHANGES THINGS! It just does.

Amiira: …and not always for the better.

Greg: Usually not for the better because people sleep with each other too fast.

Amiira: Then they realize that they don’t really know each other that well and now they’re in a relationship that’s based on sex instead of an emotional investment and it never fails that…

Greg: … guys freak out.

Amiira: That’s not what I was going to say because ladies freak out too. What I was going to say was that one of them then has an expectation about what the sex meant.

Greg: Exactly. To some people sex means something and to others it means you had sex.

Amiira: So it’s not really the respect thing that is really at play here with having sex too early, it’s the chances of turning it into a lasting relationship.

Greg: There’s a lot of things that can go wrong from having sex too soon. There’s some guys that that’s all they’re looking for in the first place, there’s the freak out possibility, there’s the lose interest/chase is over business and I’m sure there are some morons out there that will lost respect for the girl they happily got down with the night before.

Amiira: Did you ever lose respect for someone you had sex with too soon?

Greg: Never, but I did freak out and lose interest on a few.

Posted by: Dr. Helen Fisher
Topic:  Is there still a double-standard for women? Will a man not respect a woman who has sex very early on in a relationship?

The men and women I know, and have known, don’t share their sexual habits and strategies. So although it is tempting to wax eloquent about “respect” and how men generally feel about women, I don’t actually know a lot about the general population; moreover, I have seen no hard data on this topic. So I can only respond from my personal experience. Foremost, I’m a baby boomer. And I have always conjectured that this stigma vanished some time in the mid 1960s, with the burning of bras, the rise of the women’s movement and the introduction of party drugs into the middle class. Traditions and beliefs die slowly, however, and it is easy to assume that some men have a lingering disrespect for some women who bed them soon after meeting. But I suspect the reverse is also true. Sex is not difficult to get. A romantic connection, with intellectual conversation, humor, excitement, intimacy and commitment is far more precious. So among my pals, most aren’t eager to embrace the complications and responsibilities of a sexual relationship before they know they can, ahem, tolerate, even love this potential mate. They don’t have the time, interest or energy to “sleep around.” It’s passé. But thinking on this personally for a moment. I am single. And I must admit that when a man comes on too fast, too strong, I actually do feel less respect for him.

Posted by: Dan Savage
Topic: Flirting, Adultery—The Usual

Two quick items...

1. Last week Wendy strongly implied innocent, healthy flirting—conscious or sub—leads to compulsive cheating, adultery, and heartbreak; today she attempted to clarify her previous post with another dangers-of-flirting post that seems to equate flirting with an alarming personal encounter endured that seemed to teeter on the edge of sexual assault. So "those" people that were baffled by Wendy's first post on flirting—I am all of "those" people—remain baffled. To condemn flirting, which Wendy described as "toxic," she's cited two scenarios that have nothing whatsoever to do with flirting. That's confusing, right? Or am I just easily confused?

2. Mark Morford is a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle. No one can pick apart the hypocrisies of the Bushies, fundies, and killjoys quites like Morford. Well, this week Morford wrote a column that says, basically, don't listen to "experts." You know—me, Wendy, Helen, Greg & Amiira. Newly single, Mark has some observations to share about mating:

Here is the big lesson, the thing that keeps coming at me, again and again and again: No one has the slightest clue how to make love work.

I know. Shocking. But truly, it's weirder that you might think....

For every happily married couple I know (and I do know a few), there are three more who are confused and tense and battling all sorts of doubt and crisis and regret. For every wedding announcement, there are two more separations. For every guy I know who's tremendously happy to be settled, there's another who wishes he could've had "just one more year" of unbridled freedom.

It goes on. For every woman I know who simply can't wait to have kids and who tears up in front of a newborn and whose biological clock is ticking like Dick Cheney's pacemaker in a gay fetish dungeon, there's another who has quietly realized she should maybe never have become a mother. Or that it's not all it's cracked up to be. Or that it's wonderful and profound, but oh my God the changes and the sacrifices are just never-ending and it's insanely difficult and You. Have. No. Idea.

What, still too obvious? Oh, it gets juicier.

Couples you think were rock solid and perfect have fallen apart, screamingly. Couples you thought wouldn't last a year have made it to 10 and show no signs of slowing. Couples who got together in college and were miserably mismatched took a decade off and had lots of sex with other people and then got back together and it's now the perfect, true thing. More or less. Unless it's not.

See, at a certain point, all the variants become so astounding, so dizzying, so universal, that you finally realize (yes, for the 1,000th time) there is no rule. There is no pattern. The exceptions are the rule. There is no approach that, overall, seems to work for most people most of the time. There's not even a hint of a possibility of a whisper of a rule and anyone who deigns to tell you differently, be it a church or a parent or a relationship guru, is, to put it gently, astoundingly full of crap.

That would be us, I guess. But I would argue to Mark that one of the ways you acquaint yourself with the various ways relationships work, don't work, come together, fall apart, etc.—with all the exceptions that constitute the rule—is not just through personal experience, the experiences of friends and relatives, but also through reading about other peoples' experiences—and the take that, yes, the self-appointed "experts" have on what it all means. You don't have to take what the "experts" say at face value, but the POV of an "expert" can help you test your own theories and, ultimately, make up your own mind.

Another bit of Mark's essay, this time on infidelity...

Oh, and one more: Infidelity. Oh yes. Here is perhaps the most fascinating topic of all, the soul's dirty little secret, the hottest of love's hotbuttons. Because maybe you used to look at adultery and say, oh my God, no way, it's just so wrong, horrible, hurtful, dangerous. Maybe it was even your absolute rule. Unassailable. You simply do not cheat. Do not wander. Not ever. No no no no no.

Except, yes. Except when you get to know someone -- or perhaps multiple someones -- for whom, for whatever unexpected reason and unquantifiable mutation of love and body and life, it becomes actually understandable. Justifiable. Encouraged, even. Still painful, hurtful, dangerous? Yes. But if you're honest, your boundaries will shift. Your definitions will blur. And what's more, you realize that this is how it has to be.

Couldn't agree more. When it comes to an issue like adultery, flirting, or open relationships, "no, wrong, horrible, hurtful, dangerous" leap to mind... because those are the easy answers. In reality life, and love, are way more complicated than the easy answers so many "experts"—myself very much included—offer up to us.

Posted by: Greg Behrendt
Topic:  Kissing

I miss my wife. I have been on and off the road doing standup most of the summer and the stretch I am on now is 10 days long. I want to kiss my wife. My wife is an excellent kisser. Her lips are one of my favorite places to visit and I visit often. In many relationships kissing is one of the first things to go. I'm not talking about the quick peck hear or there I'm talking about long soul kisses. Not the ones that lead to sex either although they can but I mean the ones that are a means to their own end. Kissing for the sake of having that sexual experience. A "make out party" is what we call it. It's sexual yes, but it is also the best way to reset the relationship. It's the first act usually that signifies "I'd like to be more than friends." and it serves the same purpose now. It says I know we work together and raise our girls together and run our family and various endeavors together but I like to be more than friends. I love kissing. It is like pudding, it’s one of the best things about being alive. Pudding is awesome too but that’s a story for another time. If you have not done it lately go kiss your person. If your sex life is in the dumps, before you go to counseling or break up try a nice slow beautiful kiss. Man I miss my wife!

Posted by: Wendy Shalit
Topic:  loose ends on flirting

Still some loose ends to tie up from last week's discussion on flirting.  I always find it hard to respond to those who critique what I'm secretly thinking, as opposed to what I actually wrote.  No, I do not think that flirting leads to "whoredom" or "whoring"--I never did and never would write such a thing.  Nor do I believe that flirting always leads to adultery.  So I'm more than happy to clarify all this in case this was not clear.

Unintentional flirting doesn't concern me so much because if it's truly unintentional and subconscious then there is not much to be done about it anyway.  But is all flirting unintentional?  No.  Just the other day a  man with a mysterious accent approached me as I was taking my son to the park.  He was from out of town, he explained, in distress, and needed very specific information about our neighborhood. 

Now, I'm always happy to try to help people, but there was something about this man's lack of awareness of personal space--along with his odd questions such as "this you baby?"--that unsettled me.  So I walked away from him very fast saying, "I'll ask my husband your question because I'm not from around here." Then I gave him the answer as I was walking  away, while continuing to talk on my cell phone to my husband (thus signaling that this was the end of our meeting).

When the man seemed far away, and of course after mentioning to my husband that there was this creepy guy following us, I put my cell phone away.  Suddenly out of nowhere, the guy pops up and quickly catches up to me. Apparently, his geographical question was no longer so urgent.  "I am looking to buy woman like you," he explains to me, raising his bushy eyebrows in what was apparently an attempt at seducation.  "Where do I buy woman like you?" His coming way too close to me indicated that no, this was not a language problem.  "Not here!" I responded, somewhat less cheerfully, and then Borat finally left me alone.  (Talk about getting the wrong girl.)

Now, most men do not flirt so consciously and overtly with married women on their way to the park with their toddlers.  But do most people fall at the other end of the extreme, flirting totally unconsciously and entirely innocently? I don't think so either.  I think there is a grey area, and having certain personal rules for yourself if you're in a committed relationship is a fine idea to prevent that grey area from suddenly turning black.

For not everyone in an adulterous relationship has set out to have one from the get-go, in mutual agreement with their partner.  And the proof of this is that it's called "adultery" and not "swinging." So just as many people have a fence around their property because they value it, I think it makes sense to put a "fence" around your relationship if you value it.

Posted by: Dr. Helen Fisher
Topic:  Study about women in relationships

A new study reports that wives have more power than their husbands in the home. They make more of the decisions and they dominate discussions. So I was just asked to appear on The Today Show tomorrow morning, Friday, to comment.

What’s new here? Women have always had a lot of informal power in the home. Unquestionably, women historically did lack the economic power to weigh in on important financial decisions. But today, in at least 1 of 4 households where both spouses work, the wife brings home more money than her husband. And everywhere in the world where women are economically powerful they are socially powerful as well. No wonder women have increasing power in the home.

The study also shows that wives are more demanding; they more regularly ask for changes in the relationship. This isn’t new either. Many studies show that men are, on average, happier in their marriages. Because men have fewer close friends, they are also more dependent on their spouses. So no wonder men make fewer demands.

Last, the study reports that wives are more likely to “get their way,” regardless of the issue. Once again, I’m not surprised. Men tend to avoid arguments because men become more “flooded” by their feelings--along with an unhealthy rise in blood pressure. So it is thought that men avoid disagreeable conversations (stonewalling) to unconsciously preserve their health.

This new report is actually just another sign that we are returning to life as it was a million years ago--when women commuted to work to do their gathering, the double income family was the rule and women were just as economically, socially and sexually powerful as men. We are moving forward to the past, toward equality between the sexes. I hope I will be able to say some of this tomorrow. Regardless, Happy Friday--it’s a good time in human history to be alive

Posted by: Dan Savage
Topic: Which sex is more romantic—men or women?

I've met enough romantic men over the course of my life—cough, cough—to know that men are, or can be, sufficiently romantic. But I've received enough mail from straight women via "Savage Love," my syndicated sex-advice column, complaining about their mate's shortcomings in the romance department to know that many, many men fall short.

For heterosexuals, it seems, a curious double standard/irrational expectation exists and persists. Men are generally believed to be less romantic, less thoughtful, less sensitive, etc., than women. And yet it is the man in straight courtships and straight relationships who is charged with coming through with the Grand Romantic Gestures (GRG). Why should this be the case if women are better at romance—women are more romantic! more thoughtful! more sensitive!—than men?

Well, because men are supposed to pursue, women are supposed to be pursued. He romances/pursues her; she is romanced/pursued. And since the human male doesn't have ostentatious plumage, like some birds, or a big red ass, like some baboons, GRGs are one way the human male can attract and keep the attentions of the human female. And the fact that most of us believe men to be less romantic than women makes a straight male's GRGs that much more valuable; it demonstrates a particular male's superior thoughtfulness, sensitivity, etc.

But are sensitive, thoughtful men really what women want? The letters I get from straight women complaining about romance-defecient straight men are matched by the letters I get from sensitive, thoughtful straight men complaining about how women seem to prefer selfish, insensitive "bad boys" over the kind of sensitive, thoughtful straight guys that can come through with the GRGs. Many women, it seems, are attracted to the kind of men that can't or won't come through the GRGs, partner with them, and then grouse about it.

This makes me think that women—well, some at any rate—aren't really complaining about their men being failures in the romance department, but bragging about it. Reading between the lines, some women are saying, "I married a selfish, thoughtless, and scorching hot bad boy. Jealous much?"