Are relationships really meant to last forever? Not according to Marilyn Monroe's 1955 film Seven Year Itch. Or actress Sienna Miller (who doesn't believe in monogamy and thinks we're all just animals). Or my recently divorced friend Sarah who is now dating a model 10 years her junior. Let's talk about Sarah for a moment. After being married for seven years, having a child and then feeling lonely, depressed and "trapped" in her marriage, she decided that the thought of being in one relationship for the rest of her life was about as unappealing as a man who can't get it up.
"Who says relationships are meant to be forever?" she sniffed. "For me, it's more important to have three or four decade-long relationships, rather than just one long relationship that goes on forever" ...
While some might agree with her sentiment, others might conclude that her reasoning is simply due to the fact that the man she married just simply wasn't "the one".
When I asked Sarah about the relationship with her first husband, she admitted that, while he was pretty good on paper, there was never any real spark or chemistry.
"It all became so mundane too quickly," she explained. "Two years into it and the chemistry had evaporated."
While most people can't fathom the thought of losing someone they were once in love with (even if the relationship has about as much spark as a box of wet matches), others manage to think about their exes like seasons that pass. That they are there to teach you something, help you learn about yourself and lead you one step closer to finding true happiness ... without your ex around.
The trouble is that the honeymoon period gives us all false expectations. Everything is all so loving and dandy, romantic, sexy and filled with passion and chocolate dipped strawberries. Which makes it all the more disappointing when things don't work out.
Experts will tell you that it all turns to hell in a hand basket at about the seven-year mark of a relationship. It's at this point that couples seem to fall out of love. They start fighting, nagging and nit-picking at the little things and, before they know it, they're contemplating having affairs, moving out and never looking back.
Of course while life manages to get in the way of any relationship, should all this really spell the kiss of death? And how do you know that it's not meant to be, as opposed to one of you just being too darn picky?
According to a new survey carried out by personal grooming company Remington, it's not at the seven-year point that it all unravels, but it's actually the seven-month mark that we have to be wary of. After polling 1000 adults, the survey found that, at the seven-month mark, couples tend to stop grooming as much, let their bad habits get displayed and quit trying to impress each other.
You know how it is: bikini waxes are grown out, people go to the bathroom with the door open, everything starts to hang out and hang loose. Almost half of the respondents said it was after seven months together that they felt comfortable breaking wind around their partner and 68 per cent said it was time to start wearing unsexy clothes around the house.
But back to my question: what if relationships aren't meant to last forever? Can you ever have your cake and eat it too?
Thursday, April 29, 2010
What women want
What do modern women want out of their relationships? A man who plays games? Or a man who is straight up and honest? More sex, or more foreplay? And what about when it comes to romance? While, if Freud was alive he'd still be scratching his head on this one, the question has many flummoxed, including the editors of lads' mag Esquire. Hence it's prompted them to carry out a poll on the subject. And after quizzing about 10,000 women, they seem to have come up with quite a simple answer to it all: chivalry is back with a vengeance ...
Seventy two per cent of woman polled want a man to open the door before they enter a room; 42 per cent want him to pay the bill, and 10 per cent want him to stand up as they leave the table. (Say what!?) When it comes to gifts, diamonds are no longer a girl's best friend, with 81 per cent of respondents saying they'd choose a holiday over jewellery and lingerie any day. And in the bedroom, almost half of all women wouldn't mind receiving a little oral sex from their man "once in a while".
But what about when it comes to long-term relationships? While the study doesn't cover them, the truth is that, despite the common belief that all women want a man who looks like Brad Pitt, who can make love to them all night like a runaway train and has more money than Gordon Gekko, most women know that, along with it all, comes an equally inflated ego.
Big bits between his legs don't necessarily mean better sex (it's what he does with them that counts), while big muscles indicates he probably spends more time in front of the mirror than she does.
Of course all women have their own set of preferences: blond v brunette, muscly v lean, outgoing v humble, but some common traits include variations and combinations of the following:
Be supportive
As much as men abhor "the talk" more than chewing their own toenails, the fact is women need to talk. About work, their girlfriend's latest break-up, their bad haircut, their abhorrent boss or the time their ex-boyfriend hooked up with their BFF. How much you (men) listen is the litmus test that women use to judge how supportive you are. And here's a news flash: as blokes you don't actually have to talk back. In fact the less you say, the better chance you've got of not having your balls chopped off. Men simply have to listen (or at least pretend to listen), offer a few short snippets of advice, smile, nod, frown and then continue to listen until the woman is all done. And not a minute sooner.
Make her feel safe
These days, with sexual appetites running rampant and the casual sex generation in full swing, women are being pashed and then dashed from like a used piece of gum.
Biologically, this doesn't fly with the female sex. The theory goes as follows: a woman gets one egg a month (as opposed to a man who makes millions of sperm). Hence biologically she needs to be mightily picky. And she needs to feel safe with whoever the man is that she chooses to be with, otherwise there's not going to be much action in the bedroom. (Which is why the pick-up artists have studied techniques on how to make a woman feel safe instantly so that she'll agree to come home with them the very night they meet her. And apparently it works like a charm!)
Generous in bed
I'm not talking about sharing your bowl of ice cream or midnight bowl of noodles. I'm talking about giving a little more than you expect in return. Oh, and by the way, women discuss your sexual prowess in great detail over coffees or cocktails - so don't let your partner have nothing to boast about.
Be romantic
It doesn't take much to be romantic. If you can't afford the whole bunch of roses, pick one, tie a ribbon around it and write three words on a note - "thinking of you" will suffice. Seriously, for women, it's the thought that counts. And it's the surprise that counts too. Chocolate and flowers are all very well on her birthday. But how about giving them to her once in a while "just because"?
Tell us you love us
There are not many women out there who understand that men don't communicate about their feelings with their words. So, instead of declaring their love through their language, they do it through their actions. So ladies, next time you're thinking of berating your man over the fact that he hasn't said the "L" word since Seinfeld was on television, stop and think of the myriad acts he's done for you instead. For instance: did he take you out for a romantic dinner? Fix your computer? Cook you a meal? Take out the garbage without having to be asked? Men show their love rather than say it. And the quicker women learn to see the signs, the better. But here's a quick bit of advice for a man: it doesn't exactly hurt to tell her you love her once in a blue moon, just know that it doesn't count during sex ...
Be a team
You don't have to be by her side every waking hour, but when it's a wedding, birthday or end-of-the-year Christmas work function, just tag along. Men, feel free to miss your poker game or boozy night with the boys just this once. Otherwise don't be surprised if she ends up flirting with someone else just to spite you.
A good sense of humour
Please be able to take a joke. There's nothing worse than dating a bland bloke who takes himself way too seriously. It's boring, unappealing and incredibly unsexy.
Be willing to change
If she brings you home a new pair of pants or a different coloured shirt to that which you usually wear, don't get offended; be grateful that she's taking the time out to spend her hard-earned cash and shopping time on you. Wear it with a smile (when she's around) and boast to your mates that your misses actually saves you money by doing the shopping for you.
Commitment
Yes, our biological clock is ticking along. And yes, many women out there are marriage-obsessed crazies. But the fact is that all women love a man who isn't afraid to put his heart on the line and actually commit. To a date, a second date, moving in together, marriage - whatever. We're simply built that way to bond. Women know how difficult it is for you and realise the value of what you're sacrificing when you hand it over.
Seventy two per cent of woman polled want a man to open the door before they enter a room; 42 per cent want him to pay the bill, and 10 per cent want him to stand up as they leave the table. (Say what!?) When it comes to gifts, diamonds are no longer a girl's best friend, with 81 per cent of respondents saying they'd choose a holiday over jewellery and lingerie any day. And in the bedroom, almost half of all women wouldn't mind receiving a little oral sex from their man "once in a while".
But what about when it comes to long-term relationships? While the study doesn't cover them, the truth is that, despite the common belief that all women want a man who looks like Brad Pitt, who can make love to them all night like a runaway train and has more money than Gordon Gekko, most women know that, along with it all, comes an equally inflated ego.
Big bits between his legs don't necessarily mean better sex (it's what he does with them that counts), while big muscles indicates he probably spends more time in front of the mirror than she does.
Of course all women have their own set of preferences: blond v brunette, muscly v lean, outgoing v humble, but some common traits include variations and combinations of the following:
Be supportive
As much as men abhor "the talk" more than chewing their own toenails, the fact is women need to talk. About work, their girlfriend's latest break-up, their bad haircut, their abhorrent boss or the time their ex-boyfriend hooked up with their BFF. How much you (men) listen is the litmus test that women use to judge how supportive you are. And here's a news flash: as blokes you don't actually have to talk back. In fact the less you say, the better chance you've got of not having your balls chopped off. Men simply have to listen (or at least pretend to listen), offer a few short snippets of advice, smile, nod, frown and then continue to listen until the woman is all done. And not a minute sooner.
Make her feel safe
These days, with sexual appetites running rampant and the casual sex generation in full swing, women are being pashed and then dashed from like a used piece of gum.
Biologically, this doesn't fly with the female sex. The theory goes as follows: a woman gets one egg a month (as opposed to a man who makes millions of sperm). Hence biologically she needs to be mightily picky. And she needs to feel safe with whoever the man is that she chooses to be with, otherwise there's not going to be much action in the bedroom. (Which is why the pick-up artists have studied techniques on how to make a woman feel safe instantly so that she'll agree to come home with them the very night they meet her. And apparently it works like a charm!)
Generous in bed
I'm not talking about sharing your bowl of ice cream or midnight bowl of noodles. I'm talking about giving a little more than you expect in return. Oh, and by the way, women discuss your sexual prowess in great detail over coffees or cocktails - so don't let your partner have nothing to boast about.
Be romantic
It doesn't take much to be romantic. If you can't afford the whole bunch of roses, pick one, tie a ribbon around it and write three words on a note - "thinking of you" will suffice. Seriously, for women, it's the thought that counts. And it's the surprise that counts too. Chocolate and flowers are all very well on her birthday. But how about giving them to her once in a while "just because"?
Tell us you love us
There are not many women out there who understand that men don't communicate about their feelings with their words. So, instead of declaring their love through their language, they do it through their actions. So ladies, next time you're thinking of berating your man over the fact that he hasn't said the "L" word since Seinfeld was on television, stop and think of the myriad acts he's done for you instead. For instance: did he take you out for a romantic dinner? Fix your computer? Cook you a meal? Take out the garbage without having to be asked? Men show their love rather than say it. And the quicker women learn to see the signs, the better. But here's a quick bit of advice for a man: it doesn't exactly hurt to tell her you love her once in a blue moon, just know that it doesn't count during sex ...
Be a team
You don't have to be by her side every waking hour, but when it's a wedding, birthday or end-of-the-year Christmas work function, just tag along. Men, feel free to miss your poker game or boozy night with the boys just this once. Otherwise don't be surprised if she ends up flirting with someone else just to spite you.
A good sense of humour
Please be able to take a joke. There's nothing worse than dating a bland bloke who takes himself way too seriously. It's boring, unappealing and incredibly unsexy.
Be willing to change
If she brings you home a new pair of pants or a different coloured shirt to that which you usually wear, don't get offended; be grateful that she's taking the time out to spend her hard-earned cash and shopping time on you. Wear it with a smile (when she's around) and boast to your mates that your misses actually saves you money by doing the shopping for you.
Commitment
Yes, our biological clock is ticking along. And yes, many women out there are marriage-obsessed crazies. But the fact is that all women love a man who isn't afraid to put his heart on the line and actually commit. To a date, a second date, moving in together, marriage - whatever. We're simply built that way to bond. Women know how difficult it is for you and realise the value of what you're sacrificing when you hand it over.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
What women want, marry at 26 say what?
Actress Tina Fey is not good for single women. In her television show 30 Rock (a fictional account of what takes place behind the scenes of a live sketch comedy), she plays TV producer Liz Lemon who is a lonely, single, binge-eating desperado with a sardonic sense of humour, wears "bi-curious" shoes and searches for men everywhere from karaoke bars to match.com ... (haven't we all?).
To make matters worse, in a recent Saturday Night Live sketch Tina Fey denigrated single women in a mock commercial for Duncan Hines Brownie Husband. In the skit, she plays a single working woman who gnaws at her brownies to "stuff her feelings down with something" and says the brownies are a "perfect blend of rich fudge and emotional intimacy". Are single women that hard up that they're replacing men with brownies? I think not.
But with Bridget Jones being the feared pin-up gal for modern women, and whispers of "not even Jennifer Aniston is able to find a date - what hope is there for the rest of us?" being heard at dinner tables, it's all getting single women's knickers in a knot.
Is this the reason that a recent study of female 20-somethings carried out by More magazine in the UK has discovered that their ideal marriage age is twenty-darn-six?! (Ten years ago, that age was 30-something.) Is this because they don't want to end up like any of Fey's characters - jaded, alone, binge-eating and carb-loading? ...
All this leads me to ask a quick question of the single ladies: is anyone out there actually NOT obsessed with getting married, finding a man and settling down? Or are all the women of the world watching with awe at Fey et al's obsessive singleton behaviour and thinking, "Geez, that better not be me!", before dashing in desperation to find the nearest groom with whom to walk down the aisle?
While the survey has sparked many a rant from the 30-plus group claiming that the 20-somethings have the wrong idea and that there's no real rush, the 20-something marrieds are not exactly impressed.
"Why would I wait?" quipped one recently married 20-something. "It's better than a life of casual sex and meaningless relationships. Besides - I've met someone I can settle down with. Where's the fun in playing the field?"
Have some women actually chosen to be single?
Fun? Well, not quite. Yet the real crux of the issue that the 30-somethings have is that many have actually chosen to be single. And all power to them! Besides, in an age rife with cheating, bad marriages and messed-up kids, and in which divorce is ubiquitous, it astounds me to see the emphasis a generation actually has on the institution of marriage. Can't it be someone's choice to be single? Can't someone be happy - and I mean truly happy, without a man by her side to keep her warm at night and pay half her grocery bills?
It doesn't look likely.
"Love happens when you least expect it!" they say. "It's just around the corner for you!" they'll tell you. "You'll find someone in no time!"
But hold on a minute. Why must everyone be in a relationship? "Because otherwise you'll be a lonely old girl bonking married men for the sex," my married friend Rob tells me. "I see them all over my office. Beautiful young girls all making googly eyes at the married men. Because they're all that's available."
Argh. The man drought theory. Here we bloody go again.
"Everyone's either married or taken." We get it. There are no men around. We're destined to be single, unhappy and spinsters forever more. Puh-lease. It's getting boring and old. Even for the men.
Do men suffer from the same conundrum?
One man, who writes for the website YourTango.com and goes under the non de plum "Redacted Guy" doesn't understand all the hype about having to "couple off".
"What is it with this 'special' s**t, by the way?" he writes. "Everyone's always telling me that I'm 'special', and there's 'someone special' out there for me, and we'll find something 'special'. I'd be happy with someone who was cool and funny and likes reverse cowgirl, thank you very much. She doesn't need to be able to play the ocarina while bare-backing atop a galloping mule ... You may assume single people are lonely and unhappy, but if that's the case, why am I smiling and why is your tip so big? Because I'm happy. And single. And drunk. So there."
For those who aren't happy with being single, what's a guy or gal to do? "Well, you have to have at least five relationships before you can settle down with someone," my friend Joan announced to a group of single gals the other night, regaling some advice her father had recently given her.
Well, not if a recent study done by UKdating.com is anything to go by. In fact, according to the results, the average woman dates about 24 men before she finds the one she wants to keep. (Seven per cent have dated between 41 to 60 dates before they found someone and 1 per cent admitted to going on from 61 to 80 dates!) The other surprising thing the poll discovered was the miniscule window modern women give men. One in four will date a guy once to see if he's the one, 35 per cent will date the same guy twice, and 16 per cent will give him three chances. Hmph.
But back to the point of this story. What these researchers, Tina Fey and the Jennifer Aniston bashers are missing is that some people genuinely choose to be single. And for whatever reason it is, they don't actually want to "find someone special" just right now. Which should be applauded, not stigmatised. My advice? Those naysayers should all shut up. Or learn to live side-by-side with uncoupled folks, and learn to like it.
PS. For those of you single and looking for love, I've hunted down an available bachelor (and by the way, it wasn't that hard. Man Drought? Pfft.) Single, 27-year-old Cleo Bachelor of the year hopeful Todd Finlay has a job, a life and a good body to boot. But he too claims that too many women out there are caught up with finding the "perfect guy", hence nice guys like him are all too often overlooked.
"Sorry ladies but I hate to break it to you but there is no such thing. I think women automatically dismiss a guy if he does not tick all the boxes on a check list they have in their heads. What about chemistry? Also, women try to change men too much; we are all human and will never be 'Mr Perfect' even though we do try."
He admits that, just like all the single ladies looking for a man, there's an equal number of single boys looking to do the same. But he reckons too many women are way too busy playing games, having sex on the first date, being too needy, trying too hard, not being themselves and "asking for big commitment towards the future too early on in the relationship". Now, who would have thought?
To make matters worse, in a recent Saturday Night Live sketch Tina Fey denigrated single women in a mock commercial for Duncan Hines Brownie Husband. In the skit, she plays a single working woman who gnaws at her brownies to "stuff her feelings down with something" and says the brownies are a "perfect blend of rich fudge and emotional intimacy". Are single women that hard up that they're replacing men with brownies? I think not.
But with Bridget Jones being the feared pin-up gal for modern women, and whispers of "not even Jennifer Aniston is able to find a date - what hope is there for the rest of us?" being heard at dinner tables, it's all getting single women's knickers in a knot.
Is this the reason that a recent study of female 20-somethings carried out by More magazine in the UK has discovered that their ideal marriage age is twenty-darn-six?! (Ten years ago, that age was 30-something.) Is this because they don't want to end up like any of Fey's characters - jaded, alone, binge-eating and carb-loading? ...
All this leads me to ask a quick question of the single ladies: is anyone out there actually NOT obsessed with getting married, finding a man and settling down? Or are all the women of the world watching with awe at Fey et al's obsessive singleton behaviour and thinking, "Geez, that better not be me!", before dashing in desperation to find the nearest groom with whom to walk down the aisle?
While the survey has sparked many a rant from the 30-plus group claiming that the 20-somethings have the wrong idea and that there's no real rush, the 20-something marrieds are not exactly impressed.
"Why would I wait?" quipped one recently married 20-something. "It's better than a life of casual sex and meaningless relationships. Besides - I've met someone I can settle down with. Where's the fun in playing the field?"
Have some women actually chosen to be single?
Fun? Well, not quite. Yet the real crux of the issue that the 30-somethings have is that many have actually chosen to be single. And all power to them! Besides, in an age rife with cheating, bad marriages and messed-up kids, and in which divorce is ubiquitous, it astounds me to see the emphasis a generation actually has on the institution of marriage. Can't it be someone's choice to be single? Can't someone be happy - and I mean truly happy, without a man by her side to keep her warm at night and pay half her grocery bills?
It doesn't look likely.
"Love happens when you least expect it!" they say. "It's just around the corner for you!" they'll tell you. "You'll find someone in no time!"
But hold on a minute. Why must everyone be in a relationship? "Because otherwise you'll be a lonely old girl bonking married men for the sex," my married friend Rob tells me. "I see them all over my office. Beautiful young girls all making googly eyes at the married men. Because they're all that's available."
Argh. The man drought theory. Here we bloody go again.
"Everyone's either married or taken." We get it. There are no men around. We're destined to be single, unhappy and spinsters forever more. Puh-lease. It's getting boring and old. Even for the men.
Do men suffer from the same conundrum?
One man, who writes for the website YourTango.com and goes under the non de plum "Redacted Guy" doesn't understand all the hype about having to "couple off".
"What is it with this 'special' s**t, by the way?" he writes. "Everyone's always telling me that I'm 'special', and there's 'someone special' out there for me, and we'll find something 'special'. I'd be happy with someone who was cool and funny and likes reverse cowgirl, thank you very much. She doesn't need to be able to play the ocarina while bare-backing atop a galloping mule ... You may assume single people are lonely and unhappy, but if that's the case, why am I smiling and why is your tip so big? Because I'm happy. And single. And drunk. So there."
For those who aren't happy with being single, what's a guy or gal to do? "Well, you have to have at least five relationships before you can settle down with someone," my friend Joan announced to a group of single gals the other night, regaling some advice her father had recently given her.
Well, not if a recent study done by UKdating.com is anything to go by. In fact, according to the results, the average woman dates about 24 men before she finds the one she wants to keep. (Seven per cent have dated between 41 to 60 dates before they found someone and 1 per cent admitted to going on from 61 to 80 dates!) The other surprising thing the poll discovered was the miniscule window modern women give men. One in four will date a guy once to see if he's the one, 35 per cent will date the same guy twice, and 16 per cent will give him three chances. Hmph.
But back to the point of this story. What these researchers, Tina Fey and the Jennifer Aniston bashers are missing is that some people genuinely choose to be single. And for whatever reason it is, they don't actually want to "find someone special" just right now. Which should be applauded, not stigmatised. My advice? Those naysayers should all shut up. Or learn to live side-by-side with uncoupled folks, and learn to like it.
PS. For those of you single and looking for love, I've hunted down an available bachelor (and by the way, it wasn't that hard. Man Drought? Pfft.) Single, 27-year-old Cleo Bachelor of the year hopeful Todd Finlay has a job, a life and a good body to boot. But he too claims that too many women out there are caught up with finding the "perfect guy", hence nice guys like him are all too often overlooked.
"Sorry ladies but I hate to break it to you but there is no such thing. I think women automatically dismiss a guy if he does not tick all the boxes on a check list they have in their heads. What about chemistry? Also, women try to change men too much; we are all human and will never be 'Mr Perfect' even though we do try."
He admits that, just like all the single ladies looking for a man, there's an equal number of single boys looking to do the same. But he reckons too many women are way too busy playing games, having sex on the first date, being too needy, trying too hard, not being themselves and "asking for big commitment towards the future too early on in the relationship". Now, who would have thought?
Friday, April 23, 2010
Can breakups ever really end affably?
This week, I've heard negative sentiment about exes all round. "My ex-wife makes my life a living hell!" someone exclaimed. "I'm still in love with her and the bitch dumped me!" claimed another. "How can we ever remain friends after I caught him in bed with another woman?" chimed in a third. Ah, the ex conundrum. For some, break-ups are smoother than a glass of vino at the end of the day. He or she decides it's over, they shut the other person out of their life, and they never look back. For others it's a painful game of back and forth as they vacillate between trying to move on, yet not wanting to let go of the past. Why? Just in case that person was "the one" and they've stuffed it up royally by letting that person go. Or just in case they can't meet someone else and they don't want to be single forever.
But in all honesty, can romantic relationships ever end well? Can things go from hot and steamy to placid and platonic? I'm not so sure. Hence I decided to answer this week's question from Anna ...
She says that, after dating someone for a couple of months, having mind-blowing sex, meeting the family and becoming the best of friends, things have had to come to a screeching halt. She had long-term plans to go traveling; he's moving interstate for work. And neither is prepared to budge for the other.
"We are clearly in different places in our lives," she tells me. While she says they've ended their relationship in the best possible way - "especially since our last relationships have always ended disastrously" - she's not so sure where their "friendship" status lies.
"I am just wondering if you can really say that the relationship was a great experience and ended on a high? Does it ever really work?" she wants to know. "And does ending amicably mean more heartbreak, or less?"
Personally, I'm not sure. It was English writer and cleric Charles Caleb Colton who famously said: "Friendship often ends in love; but love in friendship - never." And it seems he might have had a point.
While most of the time exes have the best intentions when they tell each other, "let's just be friends", the fact is that being friends with an ex conjures up all those past feelings of lust, hurt, anger and pain. So why put yourself through it? Why hang around the one person who might not exactly have your best interests at heart when it comes to you moving forward and onwards in your love life?
"I was fortunate to have the relationship end in a positive way. It saddens me when people stay in relationships that are negative for their self worth. People need to know when to move on."
I agree that it's imperative for people stuck in toxic relationships to know when it's time to move on, but how do you really know when to give up, or when to continue to fight for it?
Another mate is trying to decipher just that. While he's still in love with his ex-girlfriend, even after she callously dumped him, he thinks remaining friends will only set him back.
"She wasn't ready for a relationship but still wanted to be close friends," he told me. "But I told her, 'I've got enough friends.'"
He reckons his ex doesn't want a friendship at all - just comfort, and for him to help her get over him! Now how selfish is that? Especially since he still has feelings for her. Hence he's since rationalised that there is no way a friendship between them could ever work out. "Sometimes you just have to know when to cut them out of your life," he says.
Unless of course, you have kids together. Like Mel Gibson and his ex-girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva, who have no choice but to remain in each other's lives since they've just had a daughter together (she's six months old), but we'll just have to see how that one plans out. Or Demi Moore and Bruce Willis, who seem to pose for happy family-style portraits with all their kids and their new partners hanging on their arms.
Or my friend Joni, who has recently married her much older boyfriend, only to discover that she's not only inherited two step-kids, but a psychotic ex-wife, who is now in the picture too.
I agree with the great French author Francois Mauriac when he said: "No love, no friendship, can cross the path of our destiny without leaving some mark on it forever."
And, personally, there's nothing that pains me more than to have to let go of a person who has made an incredible mark on my life. But when your ex is someone who is making your life more of a misery than adding value to it, or you happened to find them in bed doing the horizontal mumbo with someone else, it's pretty darn difficult to contemplate ever speaking to them again. Let's just hope they stop stalking your Facebook profile ...
But in all honesty, can romantic relationships ever end well? Can things go from hot and steamy to placid and platonic? I'm not so sure. Hence I decided to answer this week's question from Anna ...
She says that, after dating someone for a couple of months, having mind-blowing sex, meeting the family and becoming the best of friends, things have had to come to a screeching halt. She had long-term plans to go traveling; he's moving interstate for work. And neither is prepared to budge for the other.
"We are clearly in different places in our lives," she tells me. While she says they've ended their relationship in the best possible way - "especially since our last relationships have always ended disastrously" - she's not so sure where their "friendship" status lies.
"I am just wondering if you can really say that the relationship was a great experience and ended on a high? Does it ever really work?" she wants to know. "And does ending amicably mean more heartbreak, or less?"
Personally, I'm not sure. It was English writer and cleric Charles Caleb Colton who famously said: "Friendship often ends in love; but love in friendship - never." And it seems he might have had a point.
While most of the time exes have the best intentions when they tell each other, "let's just be friends", the fact is that being friends with an ex conjures up all those past feelings of lust, hurt, anger and pain. So why put yourself through it? Why hang around the one person who might not exactly have your best interests at heart when it comes to you moving forward and onwards in your love life?
"I was fortunate to have the relationship end in a positive way. It saddens me when people stay in relationships that are negative for their self worth. People need to know when to move on."
I agree that it's imperative for people stuck in toxic relationships to know when it's time to move on, but how do you really know when to give up, or when to continue to fight for it?
Another mate is trying to decipher just that. While he's still in love with his ex-girlfriend, even after she callously dumped him, he thinks remaining friends will only set him back.
"She wasn't ready for a relationship but still wanted to be close friends," he told me. "But I told her, 'I've got enough friends.'"
He reckons his ex doesn't want a friendship at all - just comfort, and for him to help her get over him! Now how selfish is that? Especially since he still has feelings for her. Hence he's since rationalised that there is no way a friendship between them could ever work out. "Sometimes you just have to know when to cut them out of your life," he says.
Unless of course, you have kids together. Like Mel Gibson and his ex-girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva, who have no choice but to remain in each other's lives since they've just had a daughter together (she's six months old), but we'll just have to see how that one plans out. Or Demi Moore and Bruce Willis, who seem to pose for happy family-style portraits with all their kids and their new partners hanging on their arms.
Or my friend Joni, who has recently married her much older boyfriend, only to discover that she's not only inherited two step-kids, but a psychotic ex-wife, who is now in the picture too.
I agree with the great French author Francois Mauriac when he said: "No love, no friendship, can cross the path of our destiny without leaving some mark on it forever."
And, personally, there's nothing that pains me more than to have to let go of a person who has made an incredible mark on my life. But when your ex is someone who is making your life more of a misery than adding value to it, or you happened to find them in bed doing the horizontal mumbo with someone else, it's pretty darn difficult to contemplate ever speaking to them again. Let's just hope they stop stalking your Facebook profile ...
Living Apart Together: Can living apart in a marriage really work?
It was Katharine Hepburn who once famously opined, "Sometimes I wonder if men and women really suit each other. Perhaps they should live next door and just visit now and then." And perhaps she had a point. Like Angelina Jolie, Madonna, Diane Von Furstenberg and even the Queen, sleeping in the same bed as a man night after night has never worked for me. I watch television to fall asleep - he doesn't. I eat in bed - he forbids it. One of us snores. He likes the airconditioner on full blast, I like it when it's hot. He gets up at 5am to go for a cycle and I stay awake till 2am meeting a deadline. I like my laptop in bed with me. He says my typing keeps him away.
For many couples, the answer is to retreat to separate beds, separate living quarters or even separate houses. If you can afford it, that is.
Hollywood director Tim Burton certain can. After admitting to being an insomniac who paces his room at night and snores when he sleeps, he and his wife, actress Helena Bonham Carter, have come up with a viable solution: keep separate houses ...
As Bonham Carter told The Guardian newspaper in 2008: "It really is a great idea. You never have to compromise emotionally or feel invaded. If you've got some money and you can afford it, why not have your own space?"
London's The Telegraph newspaper dubbed the trend as "LAT": Living Apart Together. The paper claims that, for many LATS, being part of the new movement might be the best way to ensure a couple stay together for the long term.
A girlfriend of mine concurs, telling me that, like Burton and Bonham Carter, her parents live in two separate houses. They are married and are entirely committed to each other, but they just don't share a roof. On the weekends they always have a "date night" and speak to each other every day. But live together? It's just not for them.
And they're not alone either. According to a survey carried out in the US by The National Sleep Foundation, nowadays one in every four couples sleeps apart.
Even builders are noticing the trend; a survey carried out by the National Association of Home Builders predicted that more than 60 per cent of custom houses would have two master bedrooms by 2015.
And in England, while fewer couples are inclined to sleep separately, they're just as unhappy about sharing a bed. The Sleep Council found one in four women will regularly retreat to a spare room or a sofa away from their sleeping partner in the hope of getting some shut eye. So they may as well get separate mattresses too.
That's not to say that more and more couples are having less and less sex. In fact it's quite the opposite. Sex lives are thriving. But sleeping together every single night for the rest of eternity? Not so much. Despite the growing trend, sleeping apart still comes with a hefty social stigma. But surely getting married or being in love doesn't necessarily translate into being good bed buddies?
Either way, sleeping together in a marital bed is relatively new. Historian and author Stephanie Coontz says the model of couples sleeping in the same bed was developed in the early 20th century when people felt they "had to get every single need met by this constant togetherness".
She told The Washington Post that, with modern day pressures and marriages later in life, there is still "a notion that one should be permanently turned on, permanently available" and that if you slept in another room, "maybe you're not very sexual". Yeouch.
Neil Stanley, a sleep researcher at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, disagrees. He told CNN news that "sleep is the most selfish thing you can do, and you can't share it". His reason? Apparently having to share a bed increases stress hormones in men and their brains don't function as well. Hmph.
So why are we all so desperate to do it? Why has society led us to believe that marriage entails spending every non-waking hour together, side-by-side, even if it's keeping us awake, adding to our stress levels and keeping our brains from functioning in tip-top shape?
Then there's the old debate of whether or not it's a good idea to live together before marriage, let alone when you're actually ensconced in marital bliss.
New studies have proven (yet again) that living together before marriage is an absolute no-no. And that those who do decide to live together before tying the knot will find themselves broken up before they can say, "Where's the ring?"
Yep, that darn Office for National Statistics has revealed that couples who are married are less likely to split up than those who live together. Analysis of census results found that four-fifths of spouses who were married in 1991 were still together a decade later, compared with three-fifths of cohabiting couples.
There's the infamous saying: "Men: we can't live with them, can't live without them." But if it makes you a better partner in the long run, perhaps the option of "living without them" might just be the solution to all those marital and divorce woes after all.
For many couples, the answer is to retreat to separate beds, separate living quarters or even separate houses. If you can afford it, that is.
Hollywood director Tim Burton certain can. After admitting to being an insomniac who paces his room at night and snores when he sleeps, he and his wife, actress Helena Bonham Carter, have come up with a viable solution: keep separate houses ...
As Bonham Carter told The Guardian newspaper in 2008: "It really is a great idea. You never have to compromise emotionally or feel invaded. If you've got some money and you can afford it, why not have your own space?"
London's The Telegraph newspaper dubbed the trend as "LAT": Living Apart Together. The paper claims that, for many LATS, being part of the new movement might be the best way to ensure a couple stay together for the long term.
A girlfriend of mine concurs, telling me that, like Burton and Bonham Carter, her parents live in two separate houses. They are married and are entirely committed to each other, but they just don't share a roof. On the weekends they always have a "date night" and speak to each other every day. But live together? It's just not for them.
And they're not alone either. According to a survey carried out in the US by The National Sleep Foundation, nowadays one in every four couples sleeps apart.
Even builders are noticing the trend; a survey carried out by the National Association of Home Builders predicted that more than 60 per cent of custom houses would have two master bedrooms by 2015.
And in England, while fewer couples are inclined to sleep separately, they're just as unhappy about sharing a bed. The Sleep Council found one in four women will regularly retreat to a spare room or a sofa away from their sleeping partner in the hope of getting some shut eye. So they may as well get separate mattresses too.
That's not to say that more and more couples are having less and less sex. In fact it's quite the opposite. Sex lives are thriving. But sleeping together every single night for the rest of eternity? Not so much. Despite the growing trend, sleeping apart still comes with a hefty social stigma. But surely getting married or being in love doesn't necessarily translate into being good bed buddies?
Either way, sleeping together in a marital bed is relatively new. Historian and author Stephanie Coontz says the model of couples sleeping in the same bed was developed in the early 20th century when people felt they "had to get every single need met by this constant togetherness".
She told The Washington Post that, with modern day pressures and marriages later in life, there is still "a notion that one should be permanently turned on, permanently available" and that if you slept in another room, "maybe you're not very sexual". Yeouch.
Neil Stanley, a sleep researcher at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, disagrees. He told CNN news that "sleep is the most selfish thing you can do, and you can't share it". His reason? Apparently having to share a bed increases stress hormones in men and their brains don't function as well. Hmph.
So why are we all so desperate to do it? Why has society led us to believe that marriage entails spending every non-waking hour together, side-by-side, even if it's keeping us awake, adding to our stress levels and keeping our brains from functioning in tip-top shape?
Then there's the old debate of whether or not it's a good idea to live together before marriage, let alone when you're actually ensconced in marital bliss.
New studies have proven (yet again) that living together before marriage is an absolute no-no. And that those who do decide to live together before tying the knot will find themselves broken up before they can say, "Where's the ring?"
Yep, that darn Office for National Statistics has revealed that couples who are married are less likely to split up than those who live together. Analysis of census results found that four-fifths of spouses who were married in 1991 were still together a decade later, compared with three-fifths of cohabiting couples.
There's the infamous saying: "Men: we can't live with them, can't live without them." But if it makes you a better partner in the long run, perhaps the option of "living without them" might just be the solution to all those marital and divorce woes after all.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Beard and body hair, in or out?
Once again the media has gone into overdrive over a male celebrity doing something fishy. Only this time it's not another mistress saga coming to the fore. Instead it's the case of the missing body hair, of English comedian Russell Brand to be exact. One minute he's sporting a hirsute chest of burgeoning, curling, carpet-like chest hair, and the next he's as smooth as a baby's butt as he frolics about shirtless on the beach.
While girlfriend Katy Perry has described his usually hairy look to the UK Metro newspaper as "like Jim Morrison meets Charles Manson meets Jesus meets a little bit of Elvis", it seems he's shunned it in favour of something a little more well kept.
I may have missed the memo, but since when did hairy chests on men become a dirty word? ...
While attending a dinner party the other night, I noticed a bunch of blokes in buttoned-down shirts lacking any bits of fluff on their chests. When I asked what the situation was (Were they born that way? Was it a conscious decision?), one claimed that he regularly "trimmed" his chest hair while the other said he was a perpetual chest waxer.
"It's a sign of cleanliness," claimed the trimmer. "I feel that if men don't keep their chest hair in check, what's going to be going on below?"
When I asked the other, his answer was a little simpler. "My girlfriend hates hairy chests," said the waxer. "I wax everything."
While many women seem to be lampooning men with chest or back hair, (one friend claims it's the ultimate deal-breaker and will always check out a man's back before agreeing to a second date), I personally don't see the big deal. In fact, when it comes to hair, I often wonder exactly why women would want to date a man whose legs are smoother than hers, who has the chest of a 12-year-old boy and who gets prickly in bed midweek because he's forgotten to shave.
But it seems I'm alone in my sentiment. Many women I've spoken to admit that the sight of too much man-fluff on a man's chest, back, thighs or nether regions, is enough to send them running for the hills, or at least to get the nearest set of clippers.
And then there are the beards. Are they in or are they out? Are they hot or are they not? A quick poll of Ask Sam readers found that it all depends on the type of facial hair the man in question is sporting. A little bit of growth or some stubble around the chin area seems to get the nod, while the "wolfman" beard or a face filled with full-grown scraggly facial follicles is deemed a turn-off. (Except of course if it's Brad Pitt sporting it.)
"It means they have something to hide," quipped one. "It means they're shady," concurred another.
Another reader, Michael Cox, claims that despite the fact he's well past puberty, he's never been able to grow a beard. "I think this is good news for the follicle-ly challenged. Plus I save loads on razors."
But marketing gurus aren't so sure.
According to the findings published in The Journal of Marketing Communications, men with neat, medium-length beards were considered more credible and knowledgeable that those who were clean-shaven. The study asked a group of people to look at photos of bearded and non-bearded men endorsing products, and found that the audience were more inclined to believe that the bearded blokes held more expertise than the others.
The study stretched the outcome to other professions too. Politicians with beards were dubbed more trustworthy, since the "presence of a beard on the face of candidates could boost their charisma, reliability, and above all their expertise as perceived by voters, with positive effects on voting intention". Who would have thought?
When talking about hair, we can't leave off the issue that plagues the other half of the population: to shave or not to shave for the women?
While being hairy has always been seen as a political statement, when celebrities do it, the media pounce to discover the reason behind their statement against modern beauty trends.
Julia Roberts once stopped shaving her underarms, Alicia Silverstone once didn't shave her leg hair, and most recently at the 2010 Golden Globes, actress Mo'Nique caused a media flurry when she lifted her dress to reveal - gasp - unshaven pins. And the media were relentless. Was she making a feminist statement? Was she telling womankind not to bother with such things? Apparently not.
Mo'Nique later told Barbara Walters in an interview that "a woman should be as she is meant to be" and that her husband loves her hairy legs, so why should she bother?
Hence the question remains for both men and women: to shave, wax and trim, or not to do any of the above?
Perhaps if we follow the sentiment proffered by Mo'Nique, then it all depends on your partner's preferences. Just don't forget to put on deodorant if you're going to leave your armpits au natural.
While girlfriend Katy Perry has described his usually hairy look to the UK Metro newspaper as "like Jim Morrison meets Charles Manson meets Jesus meets a little bit of Elvis", it seems he's shunned it in favour of something a little more well kept.
I may have missed the memo, but since when did hairy chests on men become a dirty word? ...
While attending a dinner party the other night, I noticed a bunch of blokes in buttoned-down shirts lacking any bits of fluff on their chests. When I asked what the situation was (Were they born that way? Was it a conscious decision?), one claimed that he regularly "trimmed" his chest hair while the other said he was a perpetual chest waxer.
"It's a sign of cleanliness," claimed the trimmer. "I feel that if men don't keep their chest hair in check, what's going to be going on below?"
When I asked the other, his answer was a little simpler. "My girlfriend hates hairy chests," said the waxer. "I wax everything."
While many women seem to be lampooning men with chest or back hair, (one friend claims it's the ultimate deal-breaker and will always check out a man's back before agreeing to a second date), I personally don't see the big deal. In fact, when it comes to hair, I often wonder exactly why women would want to date a man whose legs are smoother than hers, who has the chest of a 12-year-old boy and who gets prickly in bed midweek because he's forgotten to shave.
But it seems I'm alone in my sentiment. Many women I've spoken to admit that the sight of too much man-fluff on a man's chest, back, thighs or nether regions, is enough to send them running for the hills, or at least to get the nearest set of clippers.
And then there are the beards. Are they in or are they out? Are they hot or are they not? A quick poll of Ask Sam readers found that it all depends on the type of facial hair the man in question is sporting. A little bit of growth or some stubble around the chin area seems to get the nod, while the "wolfman" beard or a face filled with full-grown scraggly facial follicles is deemed a turn-off. (Except of course if it's Brad Pitt sporting it.)
"It means they have something to hide," quipped one. "It means they're shady," concurred another.
Another reader, Michael Cox, claims that despite the fact he's well past puberty, he's never been able to grow a beard. "I think this is good news for the follicle-ly challenged. Plus I save loads on razors."
But marketing gurus aren't so sure.
According to the findings published in The Journal of Marketing Communications, men with neat, medium-length beards were considered more credible and knowledgeable that those who were clean-shaven. The study asked a group of people to look at photos of bearded and non-bearded men endorsing products, and found that the audience were more inclined to believe that the bearded blokes held more expertise than the others.
The study stretched the outcome to other professions too. Politicians with beards were dubbed more trustworthy, since the "presence of a beard on the face of candidates could boost their charisma, reliability, and above all their expertise as perceived by voters, with positive effects on voting intention". Who would have thought?
When talking about hair, we can't leave off the issue that plagues the other half of the population: to shave or not to shave for the women?
While being hairy has always been seen as a political statement, when celebrities do it, the media pounce to discover the reason behind their statement against modern beauty trends.
Julia Roberts once stopped shaving her underarms, Alicia Silverstone once didn't shave her leg hair, and most recently at the 2010 Golden Globes, actress Mo'Nique caused a media flurry when she lifted her dress to reveal - gasp - unshaven pins. And the media were relentless. Was she making a feminist statement? Was she telling womankind not to bother with such things? Apparently not.
Mo'Nique later told Barbara Walters in an interview that "a woman should be as she is meant to be" and that her husband loves her hairy legs, so why should she bother?
Hence the question remains for both men and women: to shave, wax and trim, or not to do any of the above?
Perhaps if we follow the sentiment proffered by Mo'Nique, then it all depends on your partner's preferences. Just don't forget to put on deodorant if you're going to leave your armpits au natural.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Can cheating save a relationship?
Will she or won't she? Leave her husband, that is. Sandra Bullock is under the microscope. Elin Nordegren has reportedly finally thrown in the towel and is said to be leaving Tiger Woods for good. And Channel Ten's fictional character Alicia Florrick from The Good Wife appears to never want to leave her husband for his indiscretions, no matter how many seedy mistress tales come out of the woodwork.
Either way, a man by the name of Noel Biderman believes that infidelity can actually help a relationship. A preposterous notion by anyone's standards, but since he's the founder and chief executive of a dating website aimed specifically at married people looking to cheat, one can't exactly blame him for attempting to peddle such codswallop.
"Life is short. Have an affair" is the advertising slogan for his website AshleyMadison.com. The site boasts 5.5 million users worldwide and was launched in Australia this week to big numbers - mostly (and most surprisingly) comprising women. Single women at that ...
"It's clear that if you look around at married male celebrities and politicians, women prefer attached men!" says Biderman. "But it also rings true with the guy in the next cubicle or the guy next door. There's the truism which says good men are hard to find."
His theory is scientifically proven by what evolutionary psychologist have dubbed as "mate poaching". According to Psychology Today magazine, one in five couples actually meet when one or both partners are involved with other people.
The theory goes that women prefer an attached man as he has been "pre-approved" by another woman already. So she knows he's capable of commitment. And isn't a psychopath.
But back to cheating. Biderman says that no couple should have to suffer through a miserable relationship, nor should they have to break up either. "I think that it's impossible to ask someone to be miserable in their relationship for the rest of their life," he told me over the phone this week. "But what our service offers is the opposite of break-up."
To me, the opposite of a break-up is working on the relationship together, not getting naked with someone else.
But Biderman's point is that it's just sex! And that if you are just meeting up with someone other than your partner for a casual sex arrangement, it's not as hurtful! And that all of it is better than a break-up! Hmph. Could have fooled me.
And let's be honest here. Once the trust is broken - whether it's because of a physical or an emotional affair - can a relationship really survive the aftermath? And I'm not just talking about it getting flashed across the media (along with the breasts, torso and sex tape of the other person involved), but I'm talking about in everyday relationships. Can you really forgive and forget a partner for going behind your back and doing the dirty with someone else? Or will you forever be reminded of it all when you look them in the eyes, sit on their couch or take a peak at their underwear drawer?
"Studies to date have found that couples do survive infidelity more often than people realise," Biderman says. "The real problem is divorce not infidelity. My service is a marriage preservation tool. It is a tool for people to use to stay in the relationship. The research from my site shows that affairs can actually repair their marriage."
While I'm not quite sure how he collects this sort of data, Anne Hooper, a sex and relationships counsellor and author based in Britain, concurs. She told The Independent newspaper that nowadays with 60 per cent of people having a sexual relationship outside their marriages, "if relationships couldn't survive infidelity, I don't think anybody would stay together".
Her advice?
"If you are going to play away, don't do it in a rude and obvious way. As long as enough love has been put in over the years, there should be enough to see them both through the crisis."
In these sorts of debates I'm often slapped with many erroneous arguments such as, "It's not in our DNA to be monogamous!", and "But I wasn't getting enough sex from my wife!" or "I can't divorce because of the kids, but I need my fun!" And I wonder what was going through their heads when they got together in the first place. If they knew it was in their DNA to stray, did they ask permission at the alter if they could fool around down the road? Did they request permission from their partner to have late-night cybersex with someone else? Or if they could use their frequent flyer miles to rendezvous with strippers and nightclub hostesses in other cities?
I doubt it.
Open marriages are something entirely different. It's like a business transaction that has been pre-approved by both parties. The terms are set, the conditions are made and the rules are stringently followed. I know many couples like this and it works swimmingly. For them. For a certain period of time, too.
Yet, when one party thinks it's open season while the other is fully committed to just one person and they discover what's been going on, I'm not quite sure if they can ever forgive and forget. Especially if it lands up on the internet ...
Either way, a man by the name of Noel Biderman believes that infidelity can actually help a relationship. A preposterous notion by anyone's standards, but since he's the founder and chief executive of a dating website aimed specifically at married people looking to cheat, one can't exactly blame him for attempting to peddle such codswallop.
"Life is short. Have an affair" is the advertising slogan for his website AshleyMadison.com. The site boasts 5.5 million users worldwide and was launched in Australia this week to big numbers - mostly (and most surprisingly) comprising women. Single women at that ...
"It's clear that if you look around at married male celebrities and politicians, women prefer attached men!" says Biderman. "But it also rings true with the guy in the next cubicle or the guy next door. There's the truism which says good men are hard to find."
His theory is scientifically proven by what evolutionary psychologist have dubbed as "mate poaching". According to Psychology Today magazine, one in five couples actually meet when one or both partners are involved with other people.
The theory goes that women prefer an attached man as he has been "pre-approved" by another woman already. So she knows he's capable of commitment. And isn't a psychopath.
But back to cheating. Biderman says that no couple should have to suffer through a miserable relationship, nor should they have to break up either. "I think that it's impossible to ask someone to be miserable in their relationship for the rest of their life," he told me over the phone this week. "But what our service offers is the opposite of break-up."
To me, the opposite of a break-up is working on the relationship together, not getting naked with someone else.
But Biderman's point is that it's just sex! And that if you are just meeting up with someone other than your partner for a casual sex arrangement, it's not as hurtful! And that all of it is better than a break-up! Hmph. Could have fooled me.
And let's be honest here. Once the trust is broken - whether it's because of a physical or an emotional affair - can a relationship really survive the aftermath? And I'm not just talking about it getting flashed across the media (along with the breasts, torso and sex tape of the other person involved), but I'm talking about in everyday relationships. Can you really forgive and forget a partner for going behind your back and doing the dirty with someone else? Or will you forever be reminded of it all when you look them in the eyes, sit on their couch or take a peak at their underwear drawer?
"Studies to date have found that couples do survive infidelity more often than people realise," Biderman says. "The real problem is divorce not infidelity. My service is a marriage preservation tool. It is a tool for people to use to stay in the relationship. The research from my site shows that affairs can actually repair their marriage."
While I'm not quite sure how he collects this sort of data, Anne Hooper, a sex and relationships counsellor and author based in Britain, concurs. She told The Independent newspaper that nowadays with 60 per cent of people having a sexual relationship outside their marriages, "if relationships couldn't survive infidelity, I don't think anybody would stay together".
Her advice?
"If you are going to play away, don't do it in a rude and obvious way. As long as enough love has been put in over the years, there should be enough to see them both through the crisis."
In these sorts of debates I'm often slapped with many erroneous arguments such as, "It's not in our DNA to be monogamous!", and "But I wasn't getting enough sex from my wife!" or "I can't divorce because of the kids, but I need my fun!" And I wonder what was going through their heads when they got together in the first place. If they knew it was in their DNA to stray, did they ask permission at the alter if they could fool around down the road? Did they request permission from their partner to have late-night cybersex with someone else? Or if they could use their frequent flyer miles to rendezvous with strippers and nightclub hostesses in other cities?
I doubt it.
Open marriages are something entirely different. It's like a business transaction that has been pre-approved by both parties. The terms are set, the conditions are made and the rules are stringently followed. I know many couples like this and it works swimmingly. For them. For a certain period of time, too.
Yet, when one party thinks it's open season while the other is fully committed to just one person and they discover what's been going on, I'm not quite sure if they can ever forgive and forget. Especially if it lands up on the internet ...
Sex on the first date or virtue? The billion dollar question
The other day I was watching an episode of Billionaire Matchmaker (for research purposes, of course), when matchmaker Patti Stanger was faced with an interesting dilemma: a man named Kevin had serious commitment issues, and had come to her looking for a wife.
Not one to sit back and let her billionaire client casually date, bed and then flee from her female clients, Stanger brought in Los Angeles-based relationship guru, psychologist and author of The Truth About Men will set you free but first it'll piss you off!, Dr Pat Allen to save the day.
Stanger's hope for Kevin? That Allen could cure him of his commitment phobia. That she could make him want to settle down. That she could make him want to actually find a wife. An impossible task? Not by Allen's standards ...
The billionaire in question is a 29-year-old photographer who only dates models and has never been in a relationship for more than two weeks. But while he seemed to have a gaggle of casual gals on his speed dial, Kevin wasn't exactly ecstatic about his situation. He wanted to find a woman to marry. He just couldn't seem to get past the first night shenanigans.
"That isn't commitment issues, that's intimacy issues!" claims Steph, a colleague of mine who is well-versed in dating these sorts of men. "It doesn't matter when you sleep with him; but if you don't take the time to connect beforehand; that's not commitment phobic, that's being scared to get emotionally intimate."
But Allen disagrees. She reckons men like Kevin have the entirely wrong view about women, and she was about to set him straight.
"Men want to get laid first and they want it as cheap as they can get it," she told him in a stern voice. "The problem is that a woman who gives you sex without commitment is not a virtuous woman. Vaginas are fun to play with, but you don't marry vaginas. You marry virtue."
Allen explained to Kevin that the problem was that the type of "relationships" he's been involved in is the reason he gets bored as hell. "There's no one to talk to. Vaginas don't talk."
Stanger chimed in by telling Kevin: "[These women] are like Chinese food. Two hours later you're hungry again."
While having two women berate him over his lack of dating prowess seemed to help him understand his problems a little better, he still didn't seem convinced that it was time to give up his casual booty calling ways.
All this got me wondering; can a commitment-phobic man really be changed? And why do women hang around with these men in the first place?
To get the answers, I contacted Allen in Los Angeles, who told me this: "When women go for bad boys, they want to break them. It's a power struggle. But bad boys are simply men who have figured out that women want to nurse them all of their lives. So women nurse them with sex and permissiveness. It's so sad!"
She says that this allows men to be brats, wusses and weak. So now what?
"You don't say yes!" she yells through the phone. "I've got news for you - a friendship - human-to-human respect, loyalty and love - cannot advance after the first lay. As soon as you give them sex, no friendship can follow. Remember that."
Her advice to women? Don't hook up. "It means that the men don't care who you are, he simply cares that you are easy to get into one way or another. And because so many women give it to them, men are being seduced out of their masculinity. You have no idea how damaged men are becoming."
Instead, Allen says that women need to know their worth.
"Men need us to survive. They live longer when they have a wife."
Let's hope Kevin believes her ...
Not one to sit back and let her billionaire client casually date, bed and then flee from her female clients, Stanger brought in Los Angeles-based relationship guru, psychologist and author of The Truth About Men will set you free but first it'll piss you off!, Dr Pat Allen to save the day.
Stanger's hope for Kevin? That Allen could cure him of his commitment phobia. That she could make him want to settle down. That she could make him want to actually find a wife. An impossible task? Not by Allen's standards ...
The billionaire in question is a 29-year-old photographer who only dates models and has never been in a relationship for more than two weeks. But while he seemed to have a gaggle of casual gals on his speed dial, Kevin wasn't exactly ecstatic about his situation. He wanted to find a woman to marry. He just couldn't seem to get past the first night shenanigans.
"That isn't commitment issues, that's intimacy issues!" claims Steph, a colleague of mine who is well-versed in dating these sorts of men. "It doesn't matter when you sleep with him; but if you don't take the time to connect beforehand; that's not commitment phobic, that's being scared to get emotionally intimate."
But Allen disagrees. She reckons men like Kevin have the entirely wrong view about women, and she was about to set him straight.
"Men want to get laid first and they want it as cheap as they can get it," she told him in a stern voice. "The problem is that a woman who gives you sex without commitment is not a virtuous woman. Vaginas are fun to play with, but you don't marry vaginas. You marry virtue."
Allen explained to Kevin that the problem was that the type of "relationships" he's been involved in is the reason he gets bored as hell. "There's no one to talk to. Vaginas don't talk."
Stanger chimed in by telling Kevin: "[These women] are like Chinese food. Two hours later you're hungry again."
While having two women berate him over his lack of dating prowess seemed to help him understand his problems a little better, he still didn't seem convinced that it was time to give up his casual booty calling ways.
All this got me wondering; can a commitment-phobic man really be changed? And why do women hang around with these men in the first place?
To get the answers, I contacted Allen in Los Angeles, who told me this: "When women go for bad boys, they want to break them. It's a power struggle. But bad boys are simply men who have figured out that women want to nurse them all of their lives. So women nurse them with sex and permissiveness. It's so sad!"
She says that this allows men to be brats, wusses and weak. So now what?
"You don't say yes!" she yells through the phone. "I've got news for you - a friendship - human-to-human respect, loyalty and love - cannot advance after the first lay. As soon as you give them sex, no friendship can follow. Remember that."
Her advice to women? Don't hook up. "It means that the men don't care who you are, he simply cares that you are easy to get into one way or another. And because so many women give it to them, men are being seduced out of their masculinity. You have no idea how damaged men are becoming."
Instead, Allen says that women need to know their worth.
"Men need us to survive. They live longer when they have a wife."
Let's hope Kevin believes her ...
Monday, April 12, 2010
Pregnancy, dating and going at it alone
There's a strange notion going around in my social circle. Women are getting older, men are getting scarcer and the ladies are getting cluckier. They want babies, and they want them now. So what's a gal to do?
Have one without a boyfriend or husband, that's what.
"Madonna did it, why can't I?" one woman said the other night over dinner. (According to Madonna's brother Christopher Ciccone's book Life with My Sister Madonna, the singer called her quest for finding a man to father her child the "Daddy Chair". Personal trainer Carlos Leon ended up filling that role, and ended up being more than just a sperm donor.)
Another woman at the dinner table claimed she wasn't getting any younger and felt that she needed to speed things up and was going to start looking into options to do it alone. And a third complained her boyfriend never wants to have kids but she wasn't sure whether to dump him, or do it behind his back ...
These women aren't the only ones contemplating giving blokes a miss. With more women than ever before spending more time on their careers, achieving financial independence, travelling, studying and enjoying freedom that family life may compromise, they're spending less time thinking about starting a family. In fact, the median age of first-time mothers has increased from 24 years in 1975 to 29.8 in 2009. Almost a quarter of Australian women are giving birth aged 35 years or older, up from 15 per cent in 1997.
Apparently Prime Minister Kevin Rudd isn't impressed. University of NSW journalism researcher Nina Funnell wrote in the Herald in February of the time she was present when Rudd gave a speech about the "crisis" of Australia's ageing population and its potential repercussions. After the talk, Rudd came to speak to her and a few other under-30s.
She writes: "At that point one of my friends introduced me, dropping in that I am completing a PhD. At this, Rudd rolled his eyes and in a terse voice lacking any sense of irony remarked that is the 'excuse' that 'all' young women are using nowadays to avoid starting families."
Funnell rebutted Rudd's sentiment in her article with this: "Why do we assume it is the obligation of all women to reproduce? And why do we label them as selfish when they don't? We never label career-driven men as selfish."
Time magazine, too, noted the trend, penning a cover story a while back titled, "Babies vs Career - Which should come first for women who want both? The harsh facts about fertility."
The Time story claimed that "27 is the age at which a woman's chance of getting pregnant begins to decline". And that once a woman turns 42, "her chances of her having a baby using her own eggs, even with advanced medical help, are less than 10 per cent".
While members of gen Y are notorious for living in the moment, many of my friends in their 30s and 40s who did just that are regretting the fact that their eggs have almost dried up, that their chances of reproducing are dwindling at a rapid rate. And, if Hollywood is anything to by, it seems this is a universal conundrum that's getting clucky ladies in a sweat.
Both Jennifer Aniston and Jennifer Lopez are pregnant, fictionally speaking that is. And neither has a boyfriend or a husband to thank for knocking them up. Both actors have new films out with this very premise.
Lopez stars in The Backup Plan, a film about a woman who wants a baby, gets artificially inseminated and then meets "the one". Aniston stars in The Switch, a film about a woman who decides to have a baby, is about to get artificially inseminated with sperm of a donor, only to have the sperm switched to that of her best friend's without her knowledge.
The lone-baby zeitgeist is evident: more modern women are having babies single than ever before.
What if he doesn't want kids, but you do?
What if you indeed find the man (or woman) of your dreams, and you're ready to start procreating only to discover that they don't want children, ever? Then what? Do you compromise, or ditch 'em in the hope of going it alone?
Wouldn't it be wonderful if a woman meets a man at a bar and tells her straight up, "Babe, I'm looking for a bonk tonight. Nothing more. And don't expect a follow-up phone call either. Because I'll forget your name before I wake up tomorrow morning." Then she can reply, "Great. I won't waste my time with you. I'm looking for a man to father my future child. And the clock is ticking. So excuse me while I continue perusing the room for someone a little more suitable."
Of course no one would dare. Say anything about kids on the first few dates and you risk being given the quizzical stare in reply. But hold off and you could risk worse: a partner who doesn't share the same child-related goals as you. So when it comes to the touchy subject of kids, what's a singleton to do?
Ask around and the responses are mixed.
Patty says she always discloses her penchant for kids on the first date. "I'm 33 years old and I'm not getting any younger," she says. "Why should I hold back? I'm not wasting my time with a guy who doesn't want kids right away."
Luke says it's impossible for him to get a date if he dares to mention that he never wants to have kids. "Even in my online profile, I find that if I mention it, no women are interested. It's just not something that I can come out and say right away. The women think I'm no longer a potential candidate and they quickly move on."
Hollywood actress Cameron Diaz concurs. She told Cosmopolitan magazine that, as a woman, admitting you didn't want children is taboo, but she did it anyway. "I think women are afraid to say that they don't want children because they're going to get shunned," she told the magazine. "I have more girlfriends who don't have kids than those that do."
Thirty-seven-year-old British writer Polly Vernon claims that it was difficult for her to admit that, like Diaz, she doesn't want kids either. But the reaction to her declaration wasn't as well received.
"Women might think I'm in denial, but they let me get on with it now," she writes in The Guardian. "Men, meanwhile, are astounded. Flummoxed. They become aggressive, sneering. They psychoanalyse me, they try to work out what's wrong with me. Who knows why? Perhaps they feel rejected. Perhaps the idea that there are women at large who are not actively pursuing their sperm is an out-and-out affront to a certain kind of man. The same men who have spent years believing that all women secretly want to trap them into commitment and fatherhood, probably."
Have one without a boyfriend or husband, that's what.
"Madonna did it, why can't I?" one woman said the other night over dinner. (According to Madonna's brother Christopher Ciccone's book Life with My Sister Madonna, the singer called her quest for finding a man to father her child the "Daddy Chair". Personal trainer Carlos Leon ended up filling that role, and ended up being more than just a sperm donor.)
Another woman at the dinner table claimed she wasn't getting any younger and felt that she needed to speed things up and was going to start looking into options to do it alone. And a third complained her boyfriend never wants to have kids but she wasn't sure whether to dump him, or do it behind his back ...
These women aren't the only ones contemplating giving blokes a miss. With more women than ever before spending more time on their careers, achieving financial independence, travelling, studying and enjoying freedom that family life may compromise, they're spending less time thinking about starting a family. In fact, the median age of first-time mothers has increased from 24 years in 1975 to 29.8 in 2009. Almost a quarter of Australian women are giving birth aged 35 years or older, up from 15 per cent in 1997.
Apparently Prime Minister Kevin Rudd isn't impressed. University of NSW journalism researcher Nina Funnell wrote in the Herald in February of the time she was present when Rudd gave a speech about the "crisis" of Australia's ageing population and its potential repercussions. After the talk, Rudd came to speak to her and a few other under-30s.
She writes: "At that point one of my friends introduced me, dropping in that I am completing a PhD. At this, Rudd rolled his eyes and in a terse voice lacking any sense of irony remarked that is the 'excuse' that 'all' young women are using nowadays to avoid starting families."
Funnell rebutted Rudd's sentiment in her article with this: "Why do we assume it is the obligation of all women to reproduce? And why do we label them as selfish when they don't? We never label career-driven men as selfish."
Time magazine, too, noted the trend, penning a cover story a while back titled, "Babies vs Career - Which should come first for women who want both? The harsh facts about fertility."
The Time story claimed that "27 is the age at which a woman's chance of getting pregnant begins to decline". And that once a woman turns 42, "her chances of her having a baby using her own eggs, even with advanced medical help, are less than 10 per cent".
While members of gen Y are notorious for living in the moment, many of my friends in their 30s and 40s who did just that are regretting the fact that their eggs have almost dried up, that their chances of reproducing are dwindling at a rapid rate. And, if Hollywood is anything to by, it seems this is a universal conundrum that's getting clucky ladies in a sweat.
Both Jennifer Aniston and Jennifer Lopez are pregnant, fictionally speaking that is. And neither has a boyfriend or a husband to thank for knocking them up. Both actors have new films out with this very premise.
Lopez stars in The Backup Plan, a film about a woman who wants a baby, gets artificially inseminated and then meets "the one". Aniston stars in The Switch, a film about a woman who decides to have a baby, is about to get artificially inseminated with sperm of a donor, only to have the sperm switched to that of her best friend's without her knowledge.
The lone-baby zeitgeist is evident: more modern women are having babies single than ever before.
What if he doesn't want kids, but you do?
What if you indeed find the man (or woman) of your dreams, and you're ready to start procreating only to discover that they don't want children, ever? Then what? Do you compromise, or ditch 'em in the hope of going it alone?
Wouldn't it be wonderful if a woman meets a man at a bar and tells her straight up, "Babe, I'm looking for a bonk tonight. Nothing more. And don't expect a follow-up phone call either. Because I'll forget your name before I wake up tomorrow morning." Then she can reply, "Great. I won't waste my time with you. I'm looking for a man to father my future child. And the clock is ticking. So excuse me while I continue perusing the room for someone a little more suitable."
Of course no one would dare. Say anything about kids on the first few dates and you risk being given the quizzical stare in reply. But hold off and you could risk worse: a partner who doesn't share the same child-related goals as you. So when it comes to the touchy subject of kids, what's a singleton to do?
Ask around and the responses are mixed.
Patty says she always discloses her penchant for kids on the first date. "I'm 33 years old and I'm not getting any younger," she says. "Why should I hold back? I'm not wasting my time with a guy who doesn't want kids right away."
Luke says it's impossible for him to get a date if he dares to mention that he never wants to have kids. "Even in my online profile, I find that if I mention it, no women are interested. It's just not something that I can come out and say right away. The women think I'm no longer a potential candidate and they quickly move on."
Hollywood actress Cameron Diaz concurs. She told Cosmopolitan magazine that, as a woman, admitting you didn't want children is taboo, but she did it anyway. "I think women are afraid to say that they don't want children because they're going to get shunned," she told the magazine. "I have more girlfriends who don't have kids than those that do."
Thirty-seven-year-old British writer Polly Vernon claims that it was difficult for her to admit that, like Diaz, she doesn't want kids either. But the reaction to her declaration wasn't as well received.
"Women might think I'm in denial, but they let me get on with it now," she writes in The Guardian. "Men, meanwhile, are astounded. Flummoxed. They become aggressive, sneering. They psychoanalyse me, they try to work out what's wrong with me. Who knows why? Perhaps they feel rejected. Perhaps the idea that there are women at large who are not actively pursuing their sperm is an out-and-out affront to a certain kind of man. The same men who have spent years believing that all women secretly want to trap them into commitment and fatherhood, probably."
Friday, April 9, 2010
Is "chexting" really cheating?
Bad news ahead for digital philanderers. Just when you thought technology couldn't contribute any more perils to the dating jungle, in comes a phone phenomenon that is bound to get the claws out.
Introducing "chexting": the act of sending a barrage of raunchy text messages to someone other than your significant other. Thanks to unconfirmed reports of alleged chexting by Tiger Woods, Jesse James, Ashley Cole, David Beckham and Shane Warne, the act has fast become a pop culture phenomenon.
Bored with your partner? Lonely between the sheets? Want to get your rocks off with someone else? Fancy a little techno-foreplay? A chext might just do the trick. But while all this is mightily amusing for us, chexting is unfortunately a very real and sinister phenomenon. Because when texting leads to sexting, which leads to chexting, people get caught, lives unravel and "exting" can very well be the consequence ...
The trouble with chexts is that they can easily be saved, analysed and used as hotter evidence than a lipstick mark or a hotel receipt for two. (Which if you're starting to get paranoid, is why it might be wise to check your trusted partner's digital gadgets next time he or she takes a shower.)
So what's the appeal?
For a start, it's instantly gratifying. The chext can be carried around all day in a purse or pocket; the chexter can say whatever they desire without getting red-faced; they can act out their wildest fantasies, be chuffed at their smart jokes (that they've probably taken hours to write), can give themselves a good dose of endorphins and get their ego continually massaged by their loving and loyal chexting buddy.
But the question remains: is chexting really cheating?
This is where the lines get muddy. This is where debate rages on. This is where chexters might deny any wrongdoing but partners of the chexters in question will think otherwise. After all, if there's chexting, what else has their loving partner really been up to?
New York-based psychotherapist Dr Robi Ludwig, claims that it might not be the chext itself that falls into the philandering category, but the consequences that might follow. I watched an interview she did the other day with CBS news in which she said that "because text messages can be looked at throughout the day, it can leave someone quite stimulated and lead to impulsive behaviour".
Yet, even if the chexting relationship doesn't go anywhere, Ludwig still believes it's a form of doing the dirty.
"Texting is a betrayal," she says, "even if it doesn't go anywhere. It is emotional cheating, but very often these situations do lead to sex. It's opening a dangerous door."
This "dangerous door" is all thanks to the rise in social media platforms, which give the bored and the lonely a plethora of options to step out on their partners. Whether first thing in the morning at work, or late at night in bed while watching Survivor, unfortunately it's opened us up to a world in which adultery is almost impossible to avoid.
An ex adds you as a friend on Facebook? It would be rude not to respond! An old fling wants to iChat? Where's the harm? An ancient crush sends you a private Tweet? How will your spouse ever know if you respond?
Unfortunately, diving head and fingers first into the social networking chasm has the ability to kill relationships. In fact, the more one indulges in chexting behaviour, the further couples begin to fall down a sticky and slippery slope all the way to splitsville.
Polly Vernon, writing for The Guardian newspaper, says that, from her research, she's surmised that most of us "are, at the very least, testing the borders of fidelity via the medium of text message, or Facebook connections, or Twitter exchanges".
In an attempt to make some sort of conclusion about whether or not social networking is really to blame for all the trysts and untrustworthy behaviour, she interviews author Esther Perel (via Skype, no less) who I thought gave a fitting - albeit disturbing - conclusion to the debate.
Concludes Perel: "At all four corners of the world, at this very moment, someone is either cheating, or contemplating cheating, or listening to the stories of someone else who is cheating, envious of that person who is in the throes of an affair - or maybe they are the lover in the affair ... With every marriage, with every relationship, comes the possibility of an affair. It always will."
Somehow I hope she's mightily incorrect.
Introducing "chexting": the act of sending a barrage of raunchy text messages to someone other than your significant other. Thanks to unconfirmed reports of alleged chexting by Tiger Woods, Jesse James, Ashley Cole, David Beckham and Shane Warne, the act has fast become a pop culture phenomenon.
Bored with your partner? Lonely between the sheets? Want to get your rocks off with someone else? Fancy a little techno-foreplay? A chext might just do the trick. But while all this is mightily amusing for us, chexting is unfortunately a very real and sinister phenomenon. Because when texting leads to sexting, which leads to chexting, people get caught, lives unravel and "exting" can very well be the consequence ...
The trouble with chexts is that they can easily be saved, analysed and used as hotter evidence than a lipstick mark or a hotel receipt for two. (Which if you're starting to get paranoid, is why it might be wise to check your trusted partner's digital gadgets next time he or she takes a shower.)
So what's the appeal?
For a start, it's instantly gratifying. The chext can be carried around all day in a purse or pocket; the chexter can say whatever they desire without getting red-faced; they can act out their wildest fantasies, be chuffed at their smart jokes (that they've probably taken hours to write), can give themselves a good dose of endorphins and get their ego continually massaged by their loving and loyal chexting buddy.
But the question remains: is chexting really cheating?
This is where the lines get muddy. This is where debate rages on. This is where chexters might deny any wrongdoing but partners of the chexters in question will think otherwise. After all, if there's chexting, what else has their loving partner really been up to?
New York-based psychotherapist Dr Robi Ludwig, claims that it might not be the chext itself that falls into the philandering category, but the consequences that might follow. I watched an interview she did the other day with CBS news in which she said that "because text messages can be looked at throughout the day, it can leave someone quite stimulated and lead to impulsive behaviour".
Yet, even if the chexting relationship doesn't go anywhere, Ludwig still believes it's a form of doing the dirty.
"Texting is a betrayal," she says, "even if it doesn't go anywhere. It is emotional cheating, but very often these situations do lead to sex. It's opening a dangerous door."
This "dangerous door" is all thanks to the rise in social media platforms, which give the bored and the lonely a plethora of options to step out on their partners. Whether first thing in the morning at work, or late at night in bed while watching Survivor, unfortunately it's opened us up to a world in which adultery is almost impossible to avoid.
An ex adds you as a friend on Facebook? It would be rude not to respond! An old fling wants to iChat? Where's the harm? An ancient crush sends you a private Tweet? How will your spouse ever know if you respond?
Unfortunately, diving head and fingers first into the social networking chasm has the ability to kill relationships. In fact, the more one indulges in chexting behaviour, the further couples begin to fall down a sticky and slippery slope all the way to splitsville.
Polly Vernon, writing for The Guardian newspaper, says that, from her research, she's surmised that most of us "are, at the very least, testing the borders of fidelity via the medium of text message, or Facebook connections, or Twitter exchanges".
In an attempt to make some sort of conclusion about whether or not social networking is really to blame for all the trysts and untrustworthy behaviour, she interviews author Esther Perel (via Skype, no less) who I thought gave a fitting - albeit disturbing - conclusion to the debate.
Concludes Perel: "At all four corners of the world, at this very moment, someone is either cheating, or contemplating cheating, or listening to the stories of someone else who is cheating, envious of that person who is in the throes of an affair - or maybe they are the lover in the affair ... With every marriage, with every relationship, comes the possibility of an affair. It always will."
Somehow I hope she's mightily incorrect.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Recovering from a divorce
Winslet. Hopper. Bullock. And now my girlfriend Lisa. Not a day goes by in which another pending divorce doesn't hit the headlines. Prenups, missing golf clubs, psycho ex spouses and more baggage than Victoria Beckham can carry on a long-haul flight are hinted at. Divorce lawyers weigh in, fights break out over kids, pets and cars, and dating websites heat up with newly divorced members on the prowl for love, or at least a one-night fling.
While those in the public eye either go into hiding or separate very publicly with "divorce parties" (more on that absurd trend in a minute), Harriet, a 32-year-old lawyer, isn't having much luck.
"Will I ever survive?" she asks me, choking back tears. She's fresh out of a divorce and it's beginning to take its toll.
"Everyone liked me better when I was married. Now I'm just plain old Lisa. Single girl. Alone. With nothing"...
As I do my best to console her, Lisa admits that, while she doesn't regret leaving her husband of 10 years, there's nothing worse than the "D" word.
"It's like a death," she says quietly. "I married way too young" ...
When to marry has long been the question, especially with the rising median age for marriage and the easy access to divorce, which leaves many to conclude that perhaps it's something that modern couples would be wiser not to take on so lightly.
Which is also perhaps why I constantly hear this lament from modern single women: "Why settle for Mr OK when there's half a chance I'll eventually divorce him anyway?"
The good news is that, despite what you might read in the tabloids, divorce rates appear to be falling. Both US and British divorce rates are on the decrease, with Britain having its lowest divorce rate since 1979. And, according to the latest Australian statistics, the annual divorce rate is at its lowest since 1992. All this would seem like a mighty big feat for a world in which sometimes divorce seems as ubiquitous as a one-night stand, and just as messy.
Can you ever survive divorce?
When it comes to life after divorce, the responses are a mixed bag.
Says Dave: "Of course you can recover from a divorce. However, it is pertinent to realise three things: 1) That material wealth is a false wealth. 2)There are always two people who contribute to a split. 3) Learn from mistakes - from both sides of the argument. In the end, time spent alone to remind yourself of who you are, where you've come from and the 'good times' you both shared is the best way to get over the divorce."
Yet Donna says that it's only when you "find new love" that you will truly be able to get over it. "Otherwise you will always have old ghosts!" she says.
And P admits that, unfortunately, he didn't survive the wrath of his former spouse.
"After my divorce, I now don't see my kids, have been alienated from them and gave my ex everything - the house, property, holiday house and money. A year later she set child support on me." His health is now failing and he reckons that "till death do us part has no due diligence".
Divorce parties
While a divorce can take a gigantic toll on one's emotional and psychological well-being, nowadays a new phenomenon known as "the divorce party" is hotter than a back-alley kiss.
The divorce party was made infamous by Shanna Moakler, the ex-wife of drummer Travis Barker. She held one in Las Vegas after their split became final. The highlight of the party? A three-tiered "divorce cake" adorned with a wedding cake topper of a blonde holding a knife with a groom down below spattered with blood. Yeouch.
Party organisers and divorcees alike have jumped on the divorce party bandwagon, taking it as an opportunity to celebrate their single lives with friends and family, instead of wallowing in self pity.
Some event organisers have even created a symbolic gesture to go with it all - "The Wedding Ring Coffin" - a ceremony in which the wedding ring is placed inside a coffin and the lid is closed on it for life. Charming.
To divorce, or not to divorce?
While researching this topic, I came across a book co-written by US actress Stacey Nelkin, titled You Can't Afford To Break Up. I was intrigued. Was she saying that people should stick together as divorce is too costly? After chatting to her via email, I discovered she had a very different message:
"Because of the economic downturn, many people are finding it too costly to get a divorce," she said. "There are lawyers' fees, new dwellings for both partners, and not to mention the high cost of dating! Figuratively, unless you are really self aware, you are going to break up and confront the same issues with the next person. New face, same scenario."
While she admits that she would never suggest staying together for monetary reasons - "life is too short and precious to be miserable" - she does warn couples that, before any proclamations are made and bags packed, all consequences both for and against the decision need to be weighed up. And having been married twice before, she reckons she's definitely an expert on such matters.
Her final word of advice?
"Love is hard to find. For this very reason, it should propel us into working to keep the fires burning in our existing relationships. Marriage can be more fun and sexy after a decade or two together than when you first met and fell in love."
PS. To live together, or not to live together?
Don't do it. Yep, just in case you're still wondering, now it's a fact: couples who cohabit before marriage stand a higher chance of divorce than those who live apart before tying the knot. This is according to research carried out by the University of Denver, which found that "cohabiting before engagement, even only with one's future spouse, is associated with lower marital quality and higher divorce potential". You might want to think about packing your toothbrush ... or kicking them out instead.
While those in the public eye either go into hiding or separate very publicly with "divorce parties" (more on that absurd trend in a minute), Harriet, a 32-year-old lawyer, isn't having much luck.
"Will I ever survive?" she asks me, choking back tears. She's fresh out of a divorce and it's beginning to take its toll.
"Everyone liked me better when I was married. Now I'm just plain old Lisa. Single girl. Alone. With nothing"...
As I do my best to console her, Lisa admits that, while she doesn't regret leaving her husband of 10 years, there's nothing worse than the "D" word.
"It's like a death," she says quietly. "I married way too young" ...
When to marry has long been the question, especially with the rising median age for marriage and the easy access to divorce, which leaves many to conclude that perhaps it's something that modern couples would be wiser not to take on so lightly.
Which is also perhaps why I constantly hear this lament from modern single women: "Why settle for Mr OK when there's half a chance I'll eventually divorce him anyway?"
The good news is that, despite what you might read in the tabloids, divorce rates appear to be falling. Both US and British divorce rates are on the decrease, with Britain having its lowest divorce rate since 1979. And, according to the latest Australian statistics, the annual divorce rate is at its lowest since 1992. All this would seem like a mighty big feat for a world in which sometimes divorce seems as ubiquitous as a one-night stand, and just as messy.
Can you ever survive divorce?
When it comes to life after divorce, the responses are a mixed bag.
Says Dave: "Of course you can recover from a divorce. However, it is pertinent to realise three things: 1) That material wealth is a false wealth. 2)There are always two people who contribute to a split. 3) Learn from mistakes - from both sides of the argument. In the end, time spent alone to remind yourself of who you are, where you've come from and the 'good times' you both shared is the best way to get over the divorce."
Yet Donna says that it's only when you "find new love" that you will truly be able to get over it. "Otherwise you will always have old ghosts!" she says.
And P admits that, unfortunately, he didn't survive the wrath of his former spouse.
"After my divorce, I now don't see my kids, have been alienated from them and gave my ex everything - the house, property, holiday house and money. A year later she set child support on me." His health is now failing and he reckons that "till death do us part has no due diligence".
Divorce parties
While a divorce can take a gigantic toll on one's emotional and psychological well-being, nowadays a new phenomenon known as "the divorce party" is hotter than a back-alley kiss.
The divorce party was made infamous by Shanna Moakler, the ex-wife of drummer Travis Barker. She held one in Las Vegas after their split became final. The highlight of the party? A three-tiered "divorce cake" adorned with a wedding cake topper of a blonde holding a knife with a groom down below spattered with blood. Yeouch.
Party organisers and divorcees alike have jumped on the divorce party bandwagon, taking it as an opportunity to celebrate their single lives with friends and family, instead of wallowing in self pity.
Some event organisers have even created a symbolic gesture to go with it all - "The Wedding Ring Coffin" - a ceremony in which the wedding ring is placed inside a coffin and the lid is closed on it for life. Charming.
To divorce, or not to divorce?
While researching this topic, I came across a book co-written by US actress Stacey Nelkin, titled You Can't Afford To Break Up. I was intrigued. Was she saying that people should stick together as divorce is too costly? After chatting to her via email, I discovered she had a very different message:
"Because of the economic downturn, many people are finding it too costly to get a divorce," she said. "There are lawyers' fees, new dwellings for both partners, and not to mention the high cost of dating! Figuratively, unless you are really self aware, you are going to break up and confront the same issues with the next person. New face, same scenario."
While she admits that she would never suggest staying together for monetary reasons - "life is too short and precious to be miserable" - she does warn couples that, before any proclamations are made and bags packed, all consequences both for and against the decision need to be weighed up. And having been married twice before, she reckons she's definitely an expert on such matters.
Her final word of advice?
"Love is hard to find. For this very reason, it should propel us into working to keep the fires burning in our existing relationships. Marriage can be more fun and sexy after a decade or two together than when you first met and fell in love."
PS. To live together, or not to live together?
Don't do it. Yep, just in case you're still wondering, now it's a fact: couples who cohabit before marriage stand a higher chance of divorce than those who live apart before tying the knot. This is according to research carried out by the University of Denver, which found that "cohabiting before engagement, even only with one's future spouse, is associated with lower marital quality and higher divorce potential". You might want to think about packing your toothbrush ... or kicking them out instead.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Sex and mating: a perilous chemical game?
Love, sex and the whole dating shebang is a dangerous game. Aside from a multitude of diseases running rampant (one in eight adults has genital herpes) and cheating escapades ricocheting around newspaper headlines and backdoor hotel rooms (the 2009 sex census found 47 per cent of men and 44 per cent of women have done the dirty behind their partners' backs), the real trouble is that everyone seems to be acting on their biological impulses. Thanks to chemical brain reactions, lust is mistaken for love, good sex for a long-term relationship and a follow-up phone call for true love.
But let's travel back in time for just a minute. So you meet someone you might be interested in and there's that sudden electrifying feeling. (Especially if you've been whining about your sorry single life for far too long.) You have that sick feeling in the pit of your stomach. Your heart is racing. Your cheeks are flushed. Your nether regions are tingling. And that's just the beginning. Suddenly you're laughing at all their jokes, swinging your legs to face towards theirs, gazing lovingly into their pupils and imagining what it would be like to kiss them, take them home and, for many women, have them be the father of your child.
But before any rational decisions can be made, chemistry swiftly takes over. Dopamine surges through your veins giving you a feeling akin to being on cocaine. You are instantly motivated to get to know the other person you've just met a little better.
So, to take them home or not to take them home?
For most men, the answer would be a definitive, "hell yes!", and that's not just by my observations either. If Dr Louann Brizendine, author of The Male Brain, is anything to go by, men have a sexual pursuit area that is a whopping two and a half times larger than the one in the female brain.
"Not only that," she tells CNN news, "but, beginning in their teens, they produce 20- to 25-fold more testosterone than they did during pre-adolescence. If testosterone were beer, a nine-year-old boy would be getting the equivalent of a cup a day. But a 15-year-old would be getting the equivalent of nearly two gallons a day. This fuels their sexual engines and makes it impossible for them to stop thinking about female body parts and sex."
And so "the chase" begins. How long will it take him to convince a woman he's just met that it might be a good idea to do the horizontal hanky panky?
Bass, a man I spoke to over the weekend, says that sometimes it doesn't take too long at all. Yet, while he admitted that he hoped to get laid during the Easter weekend, he did admit that nine times out of 10 he'd never call the woman again. (He says that it all has to do with her personality, but that's a whole other column.)
So what goes so wrong? Reckoning it's the women who are to blame.
"Women decide too fast if chemistry is happening," he said. "Many need to realise that sometimes the hottest fire can begin with a slow burn."
For some reason modern women are acting on their immediate chemical reactions faster than a speeding crawfish. Take Jaclyn, who admits that's exactly how her magic number of men she's slept with sped from five to 50 within just one year.
While the average number of sexual partners is about 6.5 for women, Jaclyn says she now realises she's been mistaking the whiff of a "spark" for the real deal.
"Over the years I've come to realise that you can have chemistry with just about anyone," she says. "Especially after a few drinks."
Andrew concurs. "I used to believe in love at first sight, but after watching Louis Theroux last night I'm worried people fall for the idea of each other rather than the reality of who that other person is. The best chemistry is when there is a mutual curiosity and respect for each other - a kind of tiny spark that burns long and intensifies as the relationship progresses. Unfortunately, for most guys the carnal urge takes over pretty early."
Perhaps Rick Marin summed it up best in his hilarious tome Cad: Confessions of a Toxic Bachelor when he said this:
"Women blame men for being fake ... But women are the ones speeding from zero to intimacy like a Ferrari. Which is more artificial?"
Relationship expert and Hollywood dating coach Cherry Norris says that, when a woman ruins the chase for a man, the man doesn't have the opportunity to pursue the woman. When he does get to chase, his dopamine levels rise, making him more desperate to get into her and more inclined to stick around for the long haul. Therefore Norris claims that, when things happen too quickly from the club to the bedroom, it becomes a lose/lose situation for everyone.
"Women need to know their worth and set their price high," she says. And she's not talking in monetary terms either. I listened to Norris's audio advice clip the other day and, when I sent it to Jaclyn, she called to tell me that she'd been undervaluing herself for way too long.
"I don't know why I keep doing it. It actually doesn't feel so great the next morning."
But we can't blame Jaclyn. It's increasingly difficult to tell the difference between love and lust with chemicals giving our nether regions the green light for sexual actions.
And in an age in which loneliness is the biggest factor in the hook-up culture and the "Man Drought" is causing fear to infiltrate into a woman's psyche, it's only natural that, when she gets a whiff of something more, she grabs hold of it.
Even if she knows he won't contact her the next day, somehow she can rationalise that it was all worth the risk ...
But let's travel back in time for just a minute. So you meet someone you might be interested in and there's that sudden electrifying feeling. (Especially if you've been whining about your sorry single life for far too long.) You have that sick feeling in the pit of your stomach. Your heart is racing. Your cheeks are flushed. Your nether regions are tingling. And that's just the beginning. Suddenly you're laughing at all their jokes, swinging your legs to face towards theirs, gazing lovingly into their pupils and imagining what it would be like to kiss them, take them home and, for many women, have them be the father of your child.
But before any rational decisions can be made, chemistry swiftly takes over. Dopamine surges through your veins giving you a feeling akin to being on cocaine. You are instantly motivated to get to know the other person you've just met a little better.
So, to take them home or not to take them home?
For most men, the answer would be a definitive, "hell yes!", and that's not just by my observations either. If Dr Louann Brizendine, author of The Male Brain, is anything to go by, men have a sexual pursuit area that is a whopping two and a half times larger than the one in the female brain.
"Not only that," she tells CNN news, "but, beginning in their teens, they produce 20- to 25-fold more testosterone than they did during pre-adolescence. If testosterone were beer, a nine-year-old boy would be getting the equivalent of a cup a day. But a 15-year-old would be getting the equivalent of nearly two gallons a day. This fuels their sexual engines and makes it impossible for them to stop thinking about female body parts and sex."
And so "the chase" begins. How long will it take him to convince a woman he's just met that it might be a good idea to do the horizontal hanky panky?
Bass, a man I spoke to over the weekend, says that sometimes it doesn't take too long at all. Yet, while he admitted that he hoped to get laid during the Easter weekend, he did admit that nine times out of 10 he'd never call the woman again. (He says that it all has to do with her personality, but that's a whole other column.)
So what goes so wrong? Reckoning it's the women who are to blame.
"Women decide too fast if chemistry is happening," he said. "Many need to realise that sometimes the hottest fire can begin with a slow burn."
For some reason modern women are acting on their immediate chemical reactions faster than a speeding crawfish. Take Jaclyn, who admits that's exactly how her magic number of men she's slept with sped from five to 50 within just one year.
While the average number of sexual partners is about 6.5 for women, Jaclyn says she now realises she's been mistaking the whiff of a "spark" for the real deal.
"Over the years I've come to realise that you can have chemistry with just about anyone," she says. "Especially after a few drinks."
Andrew concurs. "I used to believe in love at first sight, but after watching Louis Theroux last night I'm worried people fall for the idea of each other rather than the reality of who that other person is. The best chemistry is when there is a mutual curiosity and respect for each other - a kind of tiny spark that burns long and intensifies as the relationship progresses. Unfortunately, for most guys the carnal urge takes over pretty early."
Perhaps Rick Marin summed it up best in his hilarious tome Cad: Confessions of a Toxic Bachelor when he said this:
"Women blame men for being fake ... But women are the ones speeding from zero to intimacy like a Ferrari. Which is more artificial?"
Relationship expert and Hollywood dating coach Cherry Norris says that, when a woman ruins the chase for a man, the man doesn't have the opportunity to pursue the woman. When he does get to chase, his dopamine levels rise, making him more desperate to get into her and more inclined to stick around for the long haul. Therefore Norris claims that, when things happen too quickly from the club to the bedroom, it becomes a lose/lose situation for everyone.
"Women need to know their worth and set their price high," she says. And she's not talking in monetary terms either. I listened to Norris's audio advice clip the other day and, when I sent it to Jaclyn, she called to tell me that she'd been undervaluing herself for way too long.
"I don't know why I keep doing it. It actually doesn't feel so great the next morning."
But we can't blame Jaclyn. It's increasingly difficult to tell the difference between love and lust with chemicals giving our nether regions the green light for sexual actions.
And in an age in which loneliness is the biggest factor in the hook-up culture and the "Man Drought" is causing fear to infiltrate into a woman's psyche, it's only natural that, when she gets a whiff of something more, she grabs hold of it.
Even if she knows he won't contact her the next day, somehow she can rationalise that it was all worth the risk ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)