Beauty is not insurance against infidelity.

Just weighing in on the Demi Moore/Ashton Kutcher cheating thing.  Yesterday Roissy was gloating that, as he had predicted, Ashton Kutcher cheated on his significantly older wife.  (According to Wikipedia, Kutcher is 32 and Moore is 47.)  Roissy’s assertion was that Moore was just too old to keep her husband’s sexual attention and that she was a fool for thinking she could.

Well…yes and no.  I don’t think Demi Moore would have been much less in danger of having her husband cheat on her if she were 25 instead of 47.  Best-case scenario is that it just would have taken longer for him to cheat.  Ashton Kutcher has sufficient looks, fame, and wealth that regardless of whom he was married to, he would still be faced with constant temptation.  It’s more likely that Kutcher, like so many men in Hollywood before him, simply succumbed to the temptation of a young woman who was freely offering herself to him and pumping up his ego.  And in Hollywood, such women are numerous, especially when they can get something else out of the affair, like fame or access to even higher-status men.

Would it have been wiser for Kutcher to marry someone younger (if he had to marry at all, which he probably shouldn’t have)?  Possibly, but many beautiful women in Hollywood who are younger than Moore have been cheated on.  The only way female beauty is a protection against male infidelity is when the woman’s beauty greatly outpaces the man’s status, so that the man feels he has something irreplaceable to lose, and even then, it’s not a sure thing.  (Real-world example:  Roissy’s regular commenter Gorbachev, a self-proclaimed 6 who has been dating for a few months a woman whom he considers the hottest woman he’s ever seen in real life, a woman who gives him agonizing oneitis – and he still cheated on her.  And then went on the internet and told everybody.)

Basically, if you don’t believe that marriage is an exclusive sexual relationship for life, you shouldn’t marry.

BlogBiz: I got a Twitter.

It is insanely hot in Los Angeles – triple-digit heat – and it’s sapping my will to blog today.  This is the Gaian payback for an unusually mild summer, methinks.

In the meantime, in case you haven’t noticed, I jumped on the social networking bandwagon and got a Twitter account for the blog.  Sometimes I come across articles or other media that are of interest to the readers of this blog, but I don’t have the time or inclination to dissect them, or I don’t feel that a quick blurb is worth a blog post.  Twitter seemed to be the perfect solution for passing on these items.  So check out the feed on the right-side column, follow me if you wish, and if something sparks enough interest, I can always blog about it later.

Speaking of which, if you have a topic that you think would make a good blog post, write me or leave a comment here.  I can’t promise to write about the topic in the future, but it’s always good to have a pot of ideas percolating.

Thanks to everyone who has visited the blog.  You make my day, at least most of the time. ;D

Hypergamy and the stigma of being the back-up plan.

There is a pretty impassioned hash-out going on at Boundless on the topic of why men don’t ask women out.  (Yes, Boundless went to that well again.  As they say, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.)  As per usual, it’s a veritable cornucopia of insights into the modern evangelical female mind and young, evangelical relationships (or the lack thereof) in general.

One point that was brought up in the comments is that men risk their reputations when asking out women from a certain church.  If a man screws up his courage, asks out a woman, and she shoots him down, he is then socially obligated to wait an undefined period of time before asking the next woman out from the same group, lest he be pegged desperate, creepy, or undiscriminating (i.e., a wannabe player).  The risk factor is high, because one wrong move can decimate his chances with anyone for a long time.  No woman wants to be some man’s back-up plan when the most attractive option flames out.

When the topic has arisen on my blog, usually the proposed solution is just not to date women from your own church, thereby sidestepping the possibility of social ostracism.  (Of course, if you happen to find someone from another church, the single women at your own church will just despise you for not finding any of them up to your lofty standards.  Or, if they find the girl not up to snuff, they will decide that you like to slum.)

Given women’s hypergamous natures, however, I started wondering if more church women would say yes to a date with a man who had just been out on a date with another woman from the same church group.  Getting rejected by a girl in the group serves as a pretty unavoidable and obvious DLV.  If Jim Bob asks out Sue on Sunday for a date on Tuesday, and she rejects him, there is a very tiny probability that Wendy will say yes if Jim Bob asks her out on Wednesday after singles group.*  Wendy would likely cite the abovementioned reasons for rejecting him, but isn’t her hypergamous hamster the real reason?  Conversely, getting accepted for a date would be a big DHV and make a man more attractive to the other women in his social circle.  If Jim Bob asks out Sue on Sunday for a date on Tuesday, and she accepts, wouldn’t Wendy be more likely to accept a date from Jim Bob as well when he asked on Wednesday?  Someone needs to do a study on this.

* Exception:  Wendy has a pre-existing crush on Jim Bob and is doing the happy dance on the inside that she’s finally getting a shot at her dream guy.

Mike, Molly, and missed signals of attraction.

Last night the new Chuck Lorre sitcom Mike and Molly premiered.  In the episode, Mike, a cop, and Molly, a fourth grade teacher, individually attend an Overeaters Anonymous meeting.  Molly is charmed by Mike’s sense of humor and introduces herself to Mike after the meeting ends.  What happens next is right out of the Matt Savage playbook of missing signals (I kid with love, Matt):

Molly tells Mike that she’s a fourth grade teacher and would love to have a police officer come and speak to her class, HINT HINT HINT.

Mike responds that she should contact the police department and they’ll send someone over.  (Level of obliviousness:  10.)

Molly’s face immediately falls at his not taking the bait.  (Her inner monologue:  OH NO HE DOESN’T LIKE ME I WANT THE EARTH TO SWALLOW ME WHAT DO I SAY NOW????)

Fortunately for Molly (and for the premise of the sitcom), Mike’s cop friend suggests that Molly give Mike her number and Mike can talk to her class himself.

Molly happily gives Mike her number and tells him to call her.  Mike says he will.  Molly lingers, hoping that Mike will ask her out.  He doesn’t.

Molly leaves with her sister, and Mike’s friend chastises him for not making a move.  Mike defends himself, saying he didn’t want to look desperate.

Scene ends on a button.

Watch it here:

Sometimes art really does imitate life!

Dating recon and some ideas.

Yesterday I hung out at a friend’s house.  It was a perfect day for being outside:  not too warm, not too cool, a pleasant breeze, mostly insect-free.  Later, after I had advised my friend on her eHarmony matches (they suckered her back in), her brother Fernando and cousin Billy Bob joined us for a game of Mexican dominoes.

Anyone who has played Mexican dominoes before knows that it is not a fast game, so I knew that I had the perfect opportunity to pick Fernando’s brain about dating and women.

Fernando’s main complaint about women and dating was that too many women are “not fun” and only want to “go to restaurants and drink wine.”  He wanted to find women who were more interested in outdoor activities like sports, hiking, and camping.  Finding non-butch church girls who like to do these things has not been an easy task.  Fernando also said that too many women only talk about themselves on dates.  When I asked what he meant, he said that they talk too much about their goals in life.  He would like to find a funny girl who can make him laugh.  When it comes to dressing, Fernando said he loves stilettos and hates pants tucked into boots, unless the pants are leggings.  (Where Fernando is going to find a funny, sporty, Christian girl who wears stilettos and doesn’t like to go to restaurants and drink wine and talk about herself the whole time is a good question.)

Fernando didn’t let the guys off too easily, either.  He said that at his church, the guys spend all their time messaging girls on Facebook and Twitter and that they have a Sunday face and a rest-of-the-week face.  Burn!

Fernando’s comments about boring dates got me brainstorming about date ideas.  Here’s a short list of activities that popped into my head:

• See how many grapes you can stuff into your mouth
• Staring contest – whoever laughs first loses
• Print out lyrics to dirty rap songs and give dramatic poetic readings of them
• Go to a store that sells hats and try on all the hats
• Go to a Halloween store and try on clown outfits
• Buy a Lego set and assemble it
• Buy a coloring book and crayons and make art for each other
• Sit on a bench and people watch and make up stories about the people (I recently rented Date Night, and Tina Fey and Steve Carell’s characters do this at restaurants as part of their date night ritual)
• Buy a foreign language beginner book with a CD, learn a few phrases, and then try them out in public
• Go to an arcade and play Dance Dance Revolution (if a group date, Guitar Hero for the Wii)

There really isn’t anything wrong with just going to a restaurant.  If you’re a foodie, trying new places can be a lot of fun.  I think the main point, especially early on, is to do something creative and interactive where you can build rapport and learn more about the other person in a way that doesn’t come off like a job interview.  (Of course, if one or both of you are dull as dirt, the tried-and-true blueprint is a blueprint for a reason….)

Charlotte Lucas did right.

The Bible notwithstanding, Pride and Prejudice is the second-most authoritative book on courtship in an evangelical girl’s library (the first being the beloved IKDG).  I have yet, at least in an internet forum, to come across a single Christian woman who doesn’t look to P&P as a blueprint for how to do relationships right.  When confronted with the idea that P&P contains a heavy dose of female fantasy (the protagonist, a poor farm girl, marries the wealthiest, most handsome man in the county; he is so besotted that he still loves her despite her giving him a scathing browbeating upon his first proposal), most Christian girls will defend the book because the characters have character and show “growth.”  This allows the book to escape being lumped into the shameful romance novel category.

My criticisms aside, P&P does rise far above the typical Harlequin, in part due to its literary value, and (in my opinion) largely due to its incisive take on human nature.  Part of the reason that the novel still resonates nearly 200 years later is that Austen captured human nature accurately, and human nature doesn’t change.  Everyone knows a Mrs. Bennet, a Miss Bingley, a Lydia Bennet, a Lady Catherine, a Wickham, and so on.

One character who is rarely discussed, though, is Elizabeth Bennet’s best friend Charlotte Lucas.  The novel tells us that Charlotte is 28 years old, single, and plain.  In rural early 19th-century England, her chance of marrying is all but gone. In contrast to Elizabeth, who at age 20 refuses to marry pragmatically, Charlotte believes that love in marriage is hit-or-miss, and that it is better not to know too much about one’s spouse prior to marriage, since husband and wife are bound to drift apart and annoy each other, anyway.

When Elizabeth vehemently rejects a proposal from her cousin Mr. Collins, a clueless, pompous clergyman, Charlotte swoops in and snags him.  Elizabeth is shocked upon finding out and can’t believe Charlotte would give the doofus the time of day, but Charlotte calmly reminds Elizabeth that she is not a romantic and that given Mr. Collins’s material assets and social standing, she figures her chance at happiness is as good as anyone else’s who marries for love.

Shortly after Charlotte’s marriage to Mr. Collins, Elizabeth visits her friend for a few weeks, and through her eyes Austen reveals that Charlotte deals with her marriage by intrepidly avoiding her obnoxious husband whenever possible and politely not seeing his faults otherwise.  She is depicted as a tolerant and intelligent wife, if one who openly settled for a man she didn’t love.

I’ve seen some commentary that is critical of Charlotte – if Elizabeth is Austen’s mouthpiece, then Austen herself looked down on Charlotte’s choice to marry Mr. Collins – but I can’t hate on her.  Charlotte, old by the standard of the time and not pretty, had two options:  either remain a spinster and continue to live at home with virtually zero hope of ever marrying, or marry an obnoxious lunk and get to be mistress of her own house.  I think she made the right choice.  Collins is not depicted as type who would notice that his wife had very little affection for him; in fact, he comes off as kind of asexual.  The world is not everyone’s oyster, and given the circumstances, I think both characters made out about as best they could.  It would have been very difficult for Mr. Collins to find a wife who would have fallen in love with him, and nobody was beating a path to Charlotte’s door otherwise.

Would I encourage a modern-day Charlotte Lucas to make the same choice?  Maybe.  If marriage is what she really wants and she understands its obligations and is prepared to fulfill them, then I don’t see the harm in accepting the non-ideal but only offer on the table.  The success of a marriage is due largely to the actions of both parties after the vows.  If the actions are good, I think both people will be better off than if they had remained single.  Not that even this is easy to find in these non-self-sacrificing times….

No text conversation should last more than 10 messages.

Roissy – the real Roissy, not one of the A-plus-for-effort/F-minus-for-execution ghostwriters who have been plaguing the site recently – did another post on text game, where he reprints text conversations with women that his readers have submitted and then analyzes what the readers have done right and wrong.  The bad ones are cringe-inducing at best, and TL;DR at worst.  The latter make my eyes glaze over and make me wonder what kind of chump sits there and pounds his thumbs on a tiny keypad for an extended period of time that does not result in actually speaking to or being in the physical presence of the woman.

It’s impossible to run good text game when you forget the original point of texting:  brevity.  The more you drag out texting, the less effective it is.  If you can’t get your point across in one screen of text, maybe you should be sending an email instead or even…gasp…picking up the phone.  If you’re consistently sending a flurry of messages back and forth with a girl you like, maybe you should be talking on the phone or meeting in person.  Text game should be short, sassy, and always have an implied period at the end of every sentence (or, more likely, fragment).  You should not have an ongoing, day-long conversation via text where you have 200 new messages in your inbox at the end of the day.  That’s only romantic in indie movies about hapless betas.

Roissy is right that the longer you text a woman, the more the power balance swings in her favor.  (I can’t find the post where he said this, but I know I read it somewhere on the blog.)  The longer you sit there and type with your Thumbs of Thunder ([TM] Newsboys), the greater the chance that she is mentally putting you on the “entertainment” shelf or the “safe” shelf, both of which are LJBF territory.  Conversely, if she does actually like you, she will start to grow frustrated that you’re not making a move to ask her out.  She’ll start to feel like you’re just using her for entertainment.  (“I’m good enough to text ad nauseum, but not to be seen with in public?  What’s wrong with this loser?”)

This all brings me back to my subject line:  keep text conversations to a total of 10 texts between the two of you.  That’s plenty of time, text-wise, to say hello, dash off some flirtatious banter, and set up a date.  Beyond that, you start entering the land of diminishing returns and increasing the chance that you will sound arrogant, try-hard, needy, or lame.

Here’s an example of good texting that I had with my brother recently:

ME:  [attaching photo] Show mom- it’s my new comforter cover from ikea

BRO:  [an hour later] Are you 50 years old???? Hahaha

ME:  No it looks awesome in real life

And that was it.  Fun, funny, got the message across, didn’t wear out its welcome.  Sibling love strong.

What a woman thinks when a man doesn’t respond to her signal of attraction.

Matt Savage wrote a recent post on men missing signals of attraction from women.  He related a story where he was talking to an attractive young woman at a bar, and he mentioned that he liked the show True Blood.  The girl responded that she LOVED the show but, alas, had no television and did not like watching the show on her tiny computer screen.  The conversation continued and eventually petered out.

Savage then says that it took him three days to figure out that the girl had given him a huge opening to invite her back to his apartment or at least set up a future date.  Oops.

Men (in general, not Savage) like to complain about women not being straightforward and men having the onerous task of deciphering all of the cryptic messages that women send.  I guess in a man’s “perfect” world, courtship would go something like this:

MAN:  Yo, you’re hot.  Wanna do it?

WOMAN:  Okay.  By the way, it’s only easy for you to get me, ergo I am not a slut.

MAN:  *beats chest proudly*

The reason women tend to be roundabout in the ways they advertise interest, though, is that they want men to pursue them.  If a woman has to spell it out for the man, then she doesn’t feel like she is being pursued; she feels like she is the pursuer.  She will also feel like her feminine charms alone are not enough to incite action by the man, which is humiliating.  Worse, if you do end up going on a date, she will doubt your attraction to her, so expect more shit tests.  In addition, by being very straightforward, she will risk being labeled desperate and try-hard by other women and possibly other men, too.  (Everyone knows a boy-crazy girl who throws herself at every available man she meets.  No woman respects a desperate peer.)

As a result, the only option a woman has is to drop hints and hope the man responds.  If a woman suggests that you should do something together or hang out sometime, you’ve hit the motherlode.  She will not suggest hanging out to a man she has no interest in.  If she says something sounds like fun, that’s also an invitation to invite her to join in.  If she asks when the next time you’re doing X activity is, she wants you to invite her to go along.  If she asks if you need help with something, that’s also an opportunity.  If she eagerly expresses interest in something you’ve just expressed interest in (as in Savage’s anecdote above), you can make a move with confidence.

Given all of the above, when a man doesn’t act on a woman’s hints, the woman usually concludes that the man is not interested in her and has a list of 99 things he’d rather be doing.  Men complain that women want them to shoulder all of the risk, but for a woman, showing interest and dropping hints IS a risk.  Take the following scenario:

MAN:  Some friends and I are helping our buddy move this weekend.

WOMAN WHO IS INTERESTED:  Really?  That sounds like fun.  What day and time?  Do you need help?

Here is what a man with a clue would say:

MAN WITH A CLUE:  Really, you want to help?  That would be awesome.  Let me have your number so I can text you the address and time.

WOMAN WHO IS INTERESTED:  *SWOON*

HER INTERNAL DIALOGUE:  EEEE THIS GUY IS AMAZING I MUST TELL MY GIRLFRIENDS RIGHT AWAY

Here is what a man without a clue would say:

CLUELESS WONDER:  Nah, we got it.  Basically we’re just gonna be throwing some stuff in a truck and then go shoot some hoops.

CRESTFALLEN WOMAN WHO IS HATING HERSELF FOR BEING INTERESTED:  …oh.

HER INTERNAL DIALOGUE:  THIS LOSER WOULD RATHER HANG OUT WITH SWEATY, SMELLY GUYS THAN ME.  I MUST BE UGLY.  HE HAS BEEN TALKING TO ME OUT OF PITY.

Or, if she’s read He’s Just Not That Into You a bunch of times:

IRRITATED WOMAN’S INTERNAL DIALOGUE:  He doesn’t know fabulous when he sees it!  Has he looked into the mirror lately?  YOU ARE NOT ALL THAT, NIMROD.  You should be more grateful.

The signs are there if you look for them.  Just understand that the less you read them, the more frustrated a woman is going to become with you.

Singles’ Top 5 Relationship Temptations (according to Perry Noble).

A friend Facebooked a blog post by Perry Noble, pastor of NewSpring Church in South Carolina, discussing what he thinks are the top five temptations singles face when considering a relationship.  Here’s what he had to say:

#1 – Compromise! Hands down this is the first temptation…and I would argue that it is the girl that deals with this way more than the guy.  She begins wanting “Mr. Right” but will settle for “Mr. Right Now” if she perceives that all of her friends are getting married and she is not.  God has NEVER called His followers to compromise…EVER!!!  (And…ladies…if you are constantly having the defend the guy you are dating, then you know you are compromising.)

AND…ladies…if he is not pursuing you in a godly manner (which means he is not constantly trying to stick his hands down your pants) then drop him!

Yes, the abuse of exclamation points and ellipses is tedious, but if you can get past that, what we have is a grade-A example of the type of dating advice that leaves Christian singles single well into their 30s.  While there are plenty of marriage-obsessed young women out there who jump at the mere hint of any halfway decent man’s attention, this NEVER COMPROMISE advice is why there are numerous 30-year-old Christian girls who have never had a boyfriend.  I also think this type of advice plays into the pedestalization of women that the church is so (in)famous for – if you’re a female 4 who loves the Lord, waiting for your heroic Christian male 8 to wake up and realize you’re the one for him is just not going to work out well for you.

Re: men who are “constantly trying to stick his hand down your pants” – the most church alpha way of dealing with a woman regarding sexual desire is to acknowledge it openly and then draw a line in the sand and stick with it.  Constant pushing of limits can get you branded a pig who is just looking for a warm body.  Primly abstaining out of “respect” or pretending you don’t struggle with temptation will just make her angry.

#2 – Believing That Marriage Will Solve The Struggles You Are Facing While Dating! Marriage is a magnifier…and if it is a small deal when you are dating then I promise it will be a BIG HONKIN’ deal when you tie the knot!

Can’t argue much with this.

#3 – Going Too Fast! Anyone can fool anyone for a short period of time!  You need to date someone “until the new wears off!”  If two people are in a hurry to get married then it is usually because they are trying to hide something from the other person…or because they just want to have sex!

I don’t think that short courtships are a problem per se.  The problem is infatuation clouding good judgment.  Basically, if the only thing you like about the other person is making out with him or her, then you probably shouldn’t rush into marriage.  But if you have values in common and enjoy doing things together other than sucking face, then I don’t see how dating for 2 years versus 9 months is really going to make a substantial difference in the success of your marriage, especially when you’re out of college.

#4 – Trying To Be The Person That The Person They Are Dating Wants Them To Be Rather Than Who They Are – If you are having to lie about who you are to date someone…then you need to break up today!  Ladies…DO NOT SAY you love football and want to go to games with him if you don’t know the difference between the offense and the defense.  Dudes, DO NOT SAY you absolutely LOVE chic flics and want to watch them for hours if doing so drives you crazy!  If you are doing things you HATE to do…but have refused to be honest and tell the other person the truth…then you are being dishonest with them.

There’s a difference between being honest and being an intolerant stick in the mud.  If you don’t like football but your loved one does, be honest about it but be willing to participate without whining the whole time about your sacrifice.  Also, it’s okay not to do every single thing together as a couple.  Just because he doesn’t want to do something with you doesn’t mean that he doesn’t love you.

#5 – Seeking Advice And/OR Affirmation From The Wrong People! Single people…please, if you want marriage/dating advice…then go to people who are actually married and have been so for a long time!  Why in the world would you ask a single person for marriage advice?  Why would you ask someone who has literally blown through relationship after relationship how to have a relationship?  Because they read a book?  Because they know some Bible verses?  REALLY?  If you want to know how to have a successful relationship…ask those who have one.

This is TERRIBLE advice.  By the same logic, you should not listen to teenage moms preach abstinence or alcoholics preach sobriety.  Truth is truth no matter whom it comes from.  It may taste better coming from someone who’s walking the walk, but marriage advice from married people isn’t necessarily going to be better than from an unmarried person.

Spectacular church alpha DLV.

This just in:  even a natural alpha is not immune to crippling DLV.

On Sunday two of my friends and I attended our church’s monthly after-service luncheon.  I think the luncheons are intended to be “a time of fellowship,” which generally means that people who already know each other table up together and share gossip what’s going on in their lives.  In other words, if you’re single, you’ve got about a 20% change of meeting the person who will one day become your spouse.

On this particular occasion, however, my friends and I had the good fortune of coming into contact with Wilhelmina, one of the church’s dowagers, who had zoned in on two male visitors and invited us to join them at their table so they would “feel welcome.”  Ha.  (Of course, now being schooled in Game, I took it as an indirect compliment that my looks are still viable.  Well, either that, or it was a pity invite, but my hamster will not allow that line of thought to dominate.)

The two male visitors were Vlad and Pushka, whom I immediately recognized as the two guys who had sat behind me and my friends in the service and talked the whole time in another language.  It turned out that they were Armenian Persians who were doing some church cruising.  Vlad was fat, dark-haired, and had a unibrow that would make Bert from Sesame Street envious.  He seemed nice but was not super-talkative, probably because his English was so-so.  Pushka, on the other hand, was the most alpha single guy I’d come across at a church in a long time.  He had a shock of unruly thick, red hair and the physique of a guy who enjoys weights, and he was very sociable.  Even better, he had an interesting backstory that added to the contrast of his being able to claim Iranian citizenship while sporting very red hair.  Before moving to the U.S., he spent ten years living in Spain – which allowed him to speak Spanish with my Spanish-speaking friends.  Nice move!

I was starting to think that this guy had incredible, natural game – he even had the presence of mind to act surprised and insist we looked much younger when he found out how old we were – when he mentioned his Canadian “almost-fiancee.”  When my friends pressed, he said that he wanted to propose to her soon, and that he had met her online through video games.

I’m pretty sure you could hear the crash of a boulder falling from a 70-story building when he dropped that knowledge.

While online dating has grown in acceptability, in church circles that’s more or less limited to eHarmony.  Among Christians, I’ve never heard of a couple being matched through any other service.  In addition, video games are pretty much the fastest way for a man to kill any desirability he may possess.  Even though gaming is a huge industry, video gamers – at least white, male gamers – are consistently considered bottom-of-the-barrel mate material.  And guys who use online gaming to meet chicks?  That they want to marry?? Forget it.

Here’s a clip from How I Met Your Mother that nicely sums up people’s feelings about those who gets their dates this way:

Pushka said that he and Vlad would come back to our church next week.  I wish him all the best.  And I hope he doesn’t talk as much during the service.