The Great Mate Debate

Dating While Out-of-Town

Posted by:  Wendy Shalit
Topic: How many people can a person/should a person date at one time?

In 1999, Vanity Fair quoted an unnamed source who smeared me with the dark accusation that I was a "serial dater."  It felt unjust, and not just because I was 23 at the time and had gone out with about three guys in my entire life thus far. I wondered:  Aren't most people "serial daters" to the extent that they're seeking to find the right person?  I called my parents to vent, and that's when Dad the economist mused,

"Better a serial dater than a parallel dater!"  He did have a point. 

On the other hand, once upon a less enlightened time, women used to "parallel" date all over town; it was rare to have merely one "beau."  Of course, having a beau entailed collecting chocolate and flowers more than it involved sexual favors, so it really wasn't as horribly torrid as it seems.  (Or perhaps it was, with all that mystery and so many barriers to desire.)  Some would argue that the lack of physical involvement was key, and it explains how young couples were able to  shop around and explore their options with minimal heartbreak. 

Similarly, among those dating in a traditional Jewish context today, you can also find that parallel dating has a small following. Normally, when young men and women are fixed up, they are set up just one at a time.  However, in unusual situations where a man is coming in from out of town for the purposes of dating, he becomes (drumroll, please) something called an "out-of-towner," and someone for whom normal rules are bent just a teeny bit. Thus, a minority among the religious will defend an "out of town" boy being set up on two dates with two separate girls, shocking as this may seem. (This is before he knows which one will work out; I've never heard of anyone continuing with two girls simultaneously beyond a first date.)

Out-of-towners such as these will have their defenders (usually, their mothers) and their detractors (the girls) but I confess I've never been a fan of this practice, even among those who minimize physical involvement before marriage. I still think it's hard to assess if you can really open up to a person when your mind is "out of town," so to speak, and when you're constantly comparing to another.  Do what works for you, obviously, but I think first and foremost, intimacy requires focus. 

So I guess Vanity Fair was right, and I'm simply an unrepentent fan of serial dating. 

Although, here's wishing that the "series" will end for you very soon, and that you meet someone fabulous. From in or out of town.

The Nose Knows

Posted by: Wendy Shalit
Topic:  Is it OK for couples to keep big secrets (credit-card debt, plastic surgery, etc) as long as they don’t involve infidelity?

Some secrets come out anyway, so you may as well 'fess up.  In the case of a new nose, it can be awkward when a child comes along, and this baby is in possession of a nose that looks very unlike either parent's. When compared to a suspicion that the mailman was involved, confessing to a mere nose job can be far less embarrassing.

Other secrets are part of your intimate emotional space. Not everything has to be told if it is significant--nor for it to be significant.  Indeed some of the most special things can be kept private and often that way, they remain so. 

But in terms of the secrets we are not proud of, the things we are ashamed of, sharing these with a partner can deepen the relationship and make it real.  Realness obviously fosters intimacy, and it is also what makes a romantic relationship different from the relationship between you and your hairstylist. (Perhaps a poor example since some people, apparently, tell their hairdresser everything.) 

We've already talked about infidelity, which in my opinion needs to be disclosed.  As for the rest, my rule of thumb is the following: If a matter does not affect your partner, and it is not really weighing on you--such that you could either share or not, and you don't feel strongly either way--then it's probably less important to share. 

But if the fear is that our secret somehow make us unlovable, then perhaps paradoxically, it becomes more important to share--and to be reassured that we are still truly loved.

Black-and-White Grayness

Posted by:  Wendy Shalit
Conversation about: black-and-white infidelity

Some of the comments on Dan's last blog about infidelity really intrigued me.  Specifically,

...on this particular topic Dan is the only one with the right perspective...the tendency our culture has to see people in black and white is bipolar: life is nothing but gray...   [emphasis mine, to underscore the problematic parts of these statements.] 

Don't mean to be rude, but these comments are self-contradictory. To say "life is nothing but gray" is a classic black-and-white statement. 

I find human nature so fascinating.  Have you ever noticed that most people see themselves as brimming with subtlety--always making important and fine distinctions--whereas those with whom they disagree are invariably dogmatic boors?  In other words, there's a tendency to see yourself as "gray," and to paint your ideological enemies in black-and-white. An example, perhaps of the self-serving bias. (We've all been there--I've done it myself.)

With respect to the man who sought Dan's help, and Dan feeling like infidelity is sometimes the "ethical" course, I can appreciate why he sees this as the gray middle ground.  Certainly, the situation he mentions is a very difficult one.  And yet I have to disagree.

The dichotomy Dan presents, of a sexless marriage versus a fulfilling and very necessary affair, I see as a false dichotomy.

A marriage without intimacy is indeed a poor imitation of a marriage, but to me the next step would be to make a serious effort to seek help.  Have they gone to marital counseling?  Sex therapy?  Has his wife had her TSH (thyroid) levels checked?  (Being hypothyroid commonly puts a damper on the female sex drive.) It sounds like he is closing off in response to her closing off--which may be why medications have had no effect on him. Has he taken his wife out to a romantic dinner and told her how much he misses the physical aspect of their relationship? There are at least 20 related questions I would ask such a man.  He's presenting the affair as the "only" humane solution, but I would challenge that.

To me, seeking help would be the gray middle ground here.

Chicken Soup with Chopsticks

Posted by:  Wendy Shalit
Topic:  Interracial dating – has it gotten any easier in recent years?

I remember being puzzled when I was in high school, reading back issues of magazines and coming across the word "miscegenation."  Naturally, I had to look it up in the dictionary.  It seemed to be something that grownups used to seriously worry about, which completely puzzled me.  (I went to a public school and was friends with people from a variety of backgrounds.)  Today as an adult, interracial dating is not something I or my friends give any thought to, and indeed I've lost count of the number of interracial couples I'm close to. 

Perhaps it goes without saying, but the common thread that makes these marriages work is the deeper shared values.  It's a generalization, but I think our grandparents cared more about similarities in race, whereas people in their 20s and 30s now care more about similarities in core beliefs.

In a cynical age, finding a person who truly cares about the things you care about is no small thing. 

Striking a Balance

Posted by:  Wendy Shalit
Topic: The more alike you are, the happier you are: Discuss.

I think it really depends on how you are alike.  We're already covered religion so I assume today we're referring to personality.  If you are alike in unpleasantness and general selfishness, then no, that won't necessarily help.  A relationship is usually successful to the degree that the partners possess admirable character traits.   

But if we mean one's personality in general, then I think differences are not only interesting, but usually compliment a relationship.  If you both share nearly identical strengths and weaknesses, understanding runs high but it can also be challenging to help one another. Picture two serious procrastinators planning their daughter's third birthday party: Maybe it will happen by the time she's six or so, or maybe not.

Personality differences can balance and steady a relationship.

Of course, you don't want to be so different that understanding each other becomes a challenge. I suppose, as with everything, it's all about striking the right balance. 

Hey Baby, You've Got a Cute Inside! :-)

Posted by: Wendy Shalit
Conversation with: a reader

I have to say I've been really impressed by some of the comments on this blog and how they've made me think.  On Tuesday, a reader named "Wyatt" wrote this response to my "Poxy Love" post:

I'm really not certain about the external side and looking for certain criteria that way.  My question though, is wouldn't the opposite be true also?!  If you've found this person who meets your criteria for what's on the inside, create a relationship with them, isn't it possible to run into someone else who exceeds your significant other with regards to that side also?  Thank you for reading this and taking it into consideration!  Have great day.

Now that is what we call a good question.

Ultimately, though, I would respond that the answer is "no."  If the internal realm were, let's say, colored purple--and you could assess someone's inside when you took an X-ray--then yes, you might be able to find someone with a nicer purple inside.  (Or perhaps a black-and-white polka-dotted inside would be more appealing?)

But when we say "inside," I think we're essentially referring to the spiritual aspect of a person--i.e., to the non-physical.  And if what you are drawn to is truly the person's soul and spiritual side, then that's the part that necessarily endures.  Not to mention, if you're relating to a person spiritually, you're probably going to be asking what you can do for them and not angling for someone better for you. 

This all assumes, of course, that you're in a marriage or committed relationship.  If you're dating or looking for a partner, then obviously, people have their spiritual sides developed to different degrees and clearly you're entitled to look for what's important to you.  If you're looking for someone growth-oriented, probably best to stay away from the "THIS IS HOW I AM!" type of person. 

Finally, for obvious reasons, the true nature of a person tends to be easier to assess when you don't rush into a physical relationship right away.   

The Great American Tradition: Privacy

Posted by:  Wendy Shalit
Topic:  Whose personal life better reflects America today – Guiliani’s or Barack’s?

We all read gossip in the papers; we've grown so used to it we no longer even realize that it's gossip.  We make assumptions and jugments about people based on lies and hearsay.  And yet many people believe what they read in the papers, simply because it's in print; or they'll accept what a friend says about another friend just because it's "juicy."

As a writer who has regular dealings with other journalists, I know for a fact that much of what's printed about me--or the subjects I know something about--is distorted, twisted, or completely made up because of a particular writer's ideological bent. (Newsweek recently printed, inaccurately, that my husband is a rabbi--for a diversion, you can read my letter-to-the-editor here.)

If someone discloses something personal about him or herself to make a point, that is one thing.  But  people publicly discussing and judging others solely on the basis of being allegedly gay, or being allegedly a virgin, or their alleged marital problems--I'm very uncomfortable with that.

Increasingly, society demands to know the most personal details about all of us, but especially its politicians (and especially presidential candidates). The result: politicians don't really have private lives since their most personal experiences are expected to be public.  Ironically, their private lives become shaped by the public image they want to portray (whereas it should be the other way around).  We tend to assume we know all about Guiliani's personal life and Obama's, but do we?

Alexis de Tocqueville, the great student of America, claimed that "to taste the pleasures of private life" one should follow the Americans and check the political encroachments on the private realm:  "as the extent of political society expands, one must expect the sphere of private life to contract."  He wasn't just talking about government regulation.

Today we largely equate privacy with secrecy and shame.  (I.e, if we're not ashamed, then we ought to be discussing everything and "putting it all out there.")  I disagree with this approach. First of all, no one knows what goes on between a man and a woman or a politician and his family, and when they think they know, that's usually when they tend to be the most wrong.  Second, the great American tradition is to protect the private sphere: not to be our "worst selves," but to leave room to be our best selves.

It seems that this tradition, however, is on its way to being part of the history books, rather than part of our everyday experience.

Related note: I would like to recommend two books I have found extremely valuable:  The Other Side of the Story, by Yehudis Samet, and Gossip, by Lori Palatnik and Bob Burg.  The former contains amazing real-life stories about people who assumed certain things about others and turned out to be wrong; it's about how to find out the truth and be intellectually honest while being fair to others at the same time.  The second book is about seeing people in a negative light, and how this damages not only others but also your own perceptual apparatus and your own life.

Kissing Cousins

Posted by: Wendy Shalit
Topic: Should romantically involved cousins be permitted to marry? What if they have children – does that put a different spin on the situation?

There are many little mysteries in life.  If your flight is delayed and you're sitting on the tarmac for hours and hours, why can't you use your computer?  Why is my strawberry moisturizer--less than 3 oz. I might add--considered a national security threat and pried from my grasp? (Can you guess what I was doing yesterday?)

Up there with all these mysteries is the question of why, in 2007, someone would marry his or her cousin.  In the old days, of course, the pickings were slim. We didn't have air travel; we didn't even have chemistry.com (hard as this is to imagine). If you wanted to marry someone who didn't believe in exposing infants to die, for instance, sometimes you had to look a little closer to home.  Family values, as it were. (I am reminded of the first national anthem, according to Mel Brooks: "Let 'em all go to hell, except Cave Seven!")

Today, fortunately, we have more choices. So what's the issue?

Back in 2002, William Saletan suggested in Slate that the biggest problem with cousins marrying is not the increase in birth defects (which is apparently slight) but rather, that you can't divorce your cousin. 

You can move on from an ex-spouse or ex-lover, but there's no such thing as an ex-cousin. ...It isn't as bad as if you'd slept with a sibling, but it's a lot worse than if you'd slept with a friend or an officemate. We don't ban you from dating people at the office, but we don't tell you it's a great idea, either.

If you get into bed with your cousin, there's no need for Uncle Sam to throw you in jail. If it works out, great. If not, you'll find yourself in a jail no uncle will let you out of.

Pretty much says it all as far as I'm concerned.

Poxy Love

Posted by:  Wendy Shalit
Topic: Learning from celebs

I know people complain about celebs but I maintain that we can learn a lot from them.   Recently Pete Doherty told Kate Moss, via the Daily Mirror, how much he was still in love with his ex and why.  Specifically "because she's a multimillionaire," and "maybe because of the things she does in bed."  He may have been joking but then when he turned serious, Pete explained that after Kate, he could never go after some "poxy model." (Poxy in British slang means poor-quality.)

There is a lot of drama surrounding the on-again, off-again relationship between Pete and Kate.  There are accusations of Pete being kicked in the face and of infidelity on both sides. And it does make one wonder: Is there a connection between what Pete values in Kate (the money, her non-poxiness) and all this drama?  Sorry to say but I think there might be. 

A rabbi once told me that the more your relationship is based on externals, the more the object of your love can shift as soon as you meet someone who meets those external criteria better. 

Do you agree or disagree?

A False Dichotomy

Posted by:  Wendy Shalit
Topic:  What form of betrayal is more devastating to a relationship—a one-night stand or a long-term emotional entanglement on the side?

I don't know if this is legal or rebelling against the question, but I find that I really can't say which is worse.  To me these types of betrayal are equally bad.  If you are putting your romantic energy, whether emotional or physical, outside of your relationship then the person you are ultimately in a relationship with is yourself.  You're not being fair to the person you are supposedly in a relationship with, nor to the person you are getting entangled with. And you're not being fair to yourself, either, since you're not allowing the relationship to be what it could be.

I'd also like to point out that these two ways of cheating are not as diametrically opposed as one might expect.  One-night stands often lead to emotional entanglements and long-term emotional entanglements have a history of leading to one-night (and many night) stands. Although it's opportune, sometimes, to try to distinguish between physical and emotional involvement (i.e. "it's just physical, I'm not really cheating", or the opposite), all attempts are just that -- rationalizations to justify what most people know to be wrong.