There are certain milestones in every woman’s life: her first job, her first bad haircut, her first orgasm, her first heartbreak …
I was 18 when I first got my heart broken. When I could finally rouse myself to do anything other than hide under the bed sheets with a tub of peanut butter and a stack of Brad Pitt DVDs, I headed to the nearest bookshop in search for answers. Commitment-phobes, aisle one. Surviving a break-up, aisle two. How to find Mr. Right? Aisles three and four.
I'd long read books on motivation, inspiration, great autobiographies, philosophy, dieting and psychology and believed that you truly could find guidance from someone who knew enough about the subject to write an entire book on it. But a book on how to date? It had never crossed my mind ... until that fateful morning.
And that’s where I found it: The Rules: Time-tested secrets for capturing the heart of Mr Right. Apparently I had it all wrong because according to the authors - two married women, although one has since divorced, who decided to bring old-fashioned dating tactics back - you weren’t actually ever supposed to call a guy (rule #5), stare at him too much (rule #3), leave things in his apartment like your toothbrush or tampons (rule #22), and you weren’t supposed to see him more than once a week (rule #13). Oops. No wonder I was still single.
So when the man of my mental checklist appeared out of thin air (not taken, not gay, had a car and a job), I immediately put the Rules into play. I saw him twice a week (max), never called him before he called me, never accepted a Saturday date before Wednesday (okay, maybe a few times, but hey, a girl can’t be too high maintenance these days), and all in all became a bona fide “Rules” girl.
When his interest didn't wane (eureka!), I began to think that the Rules had all the answers. That if I followed them verbatim, I could have a successful relationship and that everything would be peaches and chocolate-dipped strawberries for all eternity.
That was, until I slipped. Or maybe it was doomed from the very moment I ever read the damn book because playing fossilized dating games gets pretty darn boring pretty darn fast.
So when I found myself newly single (the authors will tell me it’s because I ditched rule #22 and moved in with him too soon, or the fact that I slipped and framed a photo of us together breaking rule #17), I had to start from square one. Over the years I'd amassed quite a collection of dating books (for research purposes!) and decided it was about as good as time as any to actually read them. Surely something in there could help. Of course the rules had changed since my first heartbreak and suddenly I wasn't so sure what I was supposed to do.
It’s A Break-Up Not a Break-Down got me through the post-break-up roller coaster. Act Like a Lady, Think Like A Man helped me set some boundaries. Why Men Love Bitches insisted nice girls finish last. He’s Not That Into You ensured that any man who didn’t call when he said he would was binned instantly.
Each subsequent book gave me contradictory, conflicting, confusing advice. In fact the more I dated and the more books I read, the more my confusion grew. So when I met someone I kind of liked, I faced a dilemma: I had no idea which school of dating to listen to.
Do I sleep with him after three weeks, or three months? Am I supposed to be exclusive, or date other people? Should I call him if he doesn’t call me? Am I a bitch or a nice girl? Play the game like a man, or let him chase me so that his biological instincts and chemical reactions kick in and I trigger his neurological system that tells him to hunt (aka woo, wine and dine me) until I can resist no longer?
“Follow your heart,” they all said.
“Go with the flow,” my girlfriends advised.
The flow? I had to make the flow! I had to send the text! Respond to the emails! Go on the dates! Attend single mixers! Get waxed and plucked and primped and preened! Update my wardrobe! The flow? Puh-lease.
Men need relationship advice too
It's not only women who are facing this dating dichotomy. The men I’ve polled are just as conflicted.
Millions across the globe have read Neil Strauss’s eponymous The Game, which advises men to employ carefully tried and tested tips, tricks and tactics to get beautiful women into bed. While it works like a charm on some women, keeping up the charade gets some blokes (who want more than just casual sex from women who fall for pick-up lines), mightily confused.
Barney writes to ask if there are any books out there for men to help with the dating game that don't resort to game tactics. I wasn’t sure.
But does reading any of these books really deliver any of us true love? Or do they just make us more confused? Because let's face it: when it comes to real life, nothing is predictable, straightforward or as simple as the books lead us to believe.
Sure, a good self-help book can pick us out of a funk and give us an instant injection of self-belief.
But rules? Games? Dating regulations? I think I've finally come to the conclusion that it just doesn't work that way and nothing you read is going to help you to navigate the future of your relationship. It's all about trial and error, the chemistry and the situation.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
The case of the bond "missing" sisterhood
The great divide between our behaviour continues. Men will applaud their mates for finding a girl. Women will question whether their girlfriend is rushing into it too soon; whether their friend really deserves a guy like him or whether he really likes her or is just using her for sex. And then, if he makes a pass at her (behind his girlfriend's back), many won't hesitate to go in for the kill. (True story.)
Yet, ladies, don't fret just yet. When I asked around for stories about the missing sisterhood, I discovered that it's a little better than I might first have thought.
Bryony says that, when she kissed a man and a few weeks later met his girlfriend, she immediately put an end to their dalliances in the name of sisterhood.
"I told her about everything he was doing, because I would want to be told if my boyfriend did that ... It's a sticky business getting involved in people's relationships, but I think, I hope, I did the right thing by her. These sleazy men need to be weeded out and punished for their crimes."
While Bryony might have shown that sisterhood between women is not dead yet, Marie says that it's a rare trait and that it is fast going down the drain. "There are way too many women who will flirt back when a man, who is dating someone or married, flirts with her. It takes a good woman to resist." She says sisterhood is getting phased out and has heard one too many stories of late about women sleeping with their best friend's husbands.
While I have my own drawer filled with these sorts of sordid tales, I never really thought to blame the lack of sisterhood for the problems until I realised something quite simple: women have the ability to deflect a taken man's advances. The ball's in her court. And no matter how attracted she might be to the (questionable) bloke in question, she should deflect him on the basis that it's simply the wrong thing to do by the other woman.
Lisa says about sisterhood: "Over the years I've found that there really isn't such thing. I wish there was and we did all have this sixth sense to just ‘stick' together. It would make navigating the world a little easier."
But Dana says it isn't so much a case of sisterhood as it is of self-respect. "I had a pretty famous sportsman make the moves not too long ago. He has a so-called serious partner so I declined without thinking twice. He asked why and found it hard to have a big fat no in his face. But at the end of the day it's about self respect, not sisterhood that makes me say no."
Would a man have done the same if the situation was reversed?
Yet, ladies, don't fret just yet. When I asked around for stories about the missing sisterhood, I discovered that it's a little better than I might first have thought.
Bryony says that, when she kissed a man and a few weeks later met his girlfriend, she immediately put an end to their dalliances in the name of sisterhood.
"I told her about everything he was doing, because I would want to be told if my boyfriend did that ... It's a sticky business getting involved in people's relationships, but I think, I hope, I did the right thing by her. These sleazy men need to be weeded out and punished for their crimes."
While Bryony might have shown that sisterhood between women is not dead yet, Marie says that it's a rare trait and that it is fast going down the drain. "There are way too many women who will flirt back when a man, who is dating someone or married, flirts with her. It takes a good woman to resist." She says sisterhood is getting phased out and has heard one too many stories of late about women sleeping with their best friend's husbands.
While I have my own drawer filled with these sorts of sordid tales, I never really thought to blame the lack of sisterhood for the problems until I realised something quite simple: women have the ability to deflect a taken man's advances. The ball's in her court. And no matter how attracted she might be to the (questionable) bloke in question, she should deflect him on the basis that it's simply the wrong thing to do by the other woman.
Lisa says about sisterhood: "Over the years I've found that there really isn't such thing. I wish there was and we did all have this sixth sense to just ‘stick' together. It would make navigating the world a little easier."
But Dana says it isn't so much a case of sisterhood as it is of self-respect. "I had a pretty famous sportsman make the moves not too long ago. He has a so-called serious partner so I declined without thinking twice. He asked why and found it hard to have a big fat no in his face. But at the end of the day it's about self respect, not sisterhood that makes me say no."
Would a man have done the same if the situation was reversed?
Monday, June 21, 2010
Secrets about men every woman should know
"What are we doing here?" It's a question most women (including me) have asked a guy at some stage in the game when things are a little less clear than we women would like them to be.
"We're just having fun!" the men will answer. "Why do you women think about things so deeply?" they'll respond. "I'm a simple creature: I say it how it is." Oh, really? While I know every man worth his beige loafers might purport to be some easy-going carefree creature who likes nothing more than to be straight up (and a little dirty), the fact is men are mightily confusing.
I have no idea (most of the time) what their texts mean; if their "coffee" invitation is really a date (or just a test?); why they dump you one minute because they say they "don't want a girlfriend", but are engaged to some floozy the next. After interviewing thousands of men for over half a decade, I've come to one (rather dampening) conclusion: the male species is anything but simple, no matter how many times they tell you they're just into sex, steak, sports, beer, and more sex. Women are confused ... men are confused as to why.
The other day, when I got called over to a girlfriend's house to help her decipher some male behaviour that was being presented to her in the form of weird mixed messages and encrypted Facebook status updates, I noticed there was a book on her shelf titled Secrets About Men Every Woman Should Know. I decided to borrow it and, after flipping through the first few pages, I quickly realised that it's not so much their behaviour that baffles us, but about how we respond to it that makes all the difference. Boys will be boys (unfortunately Australia's Next Top Model marathons and couples window shopping are off the cards) and the sooner we learn how to deal with it, the saner we'll all become.
Apparently, (or so says author Barbara De Angelis), women have three choices about how to deal with men: get angry, give up entirely ("and buy a dog instead") or decide to "learn everything there is to know about understand and getting along with men". So, in light of taking on De Angelis's advice, I've spent the weekend interviewing the blokes ... and this is what I've come up with. Please feel free to tell me I'm wrong ...
His job comes first - before cuddles, sex and you.
A while back, I dated a man who was out of work (the financial crisis had just hit) and when I'd put too many long hours into my books or columns, drank too many cocktails with the girls or had a gaggle of male friends on speed dial (for work purposes!), he'd belittle and insult me. I knew it wasn't so much my actions that were upsetting him, but rather the fact he felt he had a lack of place and purpose in his life.
Steve Harvey, author of Act Like A Lady, Think Like a Man, helped me understand that. In the very first few pages of his book, he explains that, until a man has a title, job and income that he's proud of, he'll never be the man you want him to be. "If we aren't pursuing our dreams or chasing who we are, what we do, and how much we make, we're doomed. Dead," he writes. And until they find that, you are never going to be top priority. So don't even try to change him.
Men want you to talk to them.
Forget all the dating rules, books, regulations and fear of rejection: apparently the poor blokes have it way worse than we do. He's desperate to know if you're interested in him before he goes through the whole painstaking rigmarole of having to ask you out and risk having happen to him the one thing he's most afraid of in life: getting rejected. "I'm a man, I'm not a lion that may bite your head off," "So it's OK to come and say hi."
Forget every calorie you eat - blokes don't care.
While women might be jealous that stick-thin Sarah Jessica Parker can get away with wearing a pink tutu and diamond-encrusted boy-briefs (in public), the men still voted her as one of the most unattractive women in the world. They're more likely to go on a second date with a woman who chooses the steak over the side salad and you can bet your curling iron that he's not expecting muscular upper arms, a Victoria Secret-style six-pack or a butt to rival Kim Kardashian on the girl he's going to marry. He's just not. So stop obsessing about it. "Exercise like anyone else and enjoy a bloody ice-cream chocolate instead of a stupid herbal tea and some celery sticks. Then we'll take you out again."
Can men really do more than one thing at a time?
Martin says: "Sorry what? I'm watching the world cup ... you'll have to ask me that later." (True story.) If men are doing something that is important (sport), dangerous (driving in the snow) or what you are asking really doesn't warrant an answer (like who really is the bad girl on Desperate Housewives) then yes, they can only do one thing at a time. "Other than that we can multi-task well," says Martin. "As men we managed to f--- up the environment, start wars, rip off the poor, mistreat the disadvantaged and convince a variety of folks that our particular space daddy [god] is real. And I am pretty sure some of those things overlapped. So we can definitely multi-task." He has a point there.
Why men don't you LISTEN when you nag.
Here's where "simple" comes in. They're not thinking how they can please you by doing the dishes, folding the laundry or any other silly task you throw their way (which by the way, they probably think is unnecessary anyway). But rather they're thinking about what would be the quickest way to prevent this whole chat from not turning into World War III. Says Martin: "Instead of addressing the issue at hand we say whatever we can think in the moment to prevent you from going nuts, which only gets you more angry because we didn't say what you wanted to hear. Can I promise you I won't leave my underwear on the floor from now on? No I can't, because personally I don't see it as being a big deal. But if you want to discuss that, don't start the conversation by saying how we want different things in life; you come from a different upbringing; maybe having kids wouldn't be a good idea etc etc."
They know when you're desperate ... for their hand in marriage.
Men can't ask for directions, pick up their underwear or remember to buy Jennifer Aniston enough lemons, but there's one thing they're more intuitive about than anything else: a woman who is desperate. If husband hunting is a sport more appealing to you than NFL or bargain shopping, then you'd better find a way to see relationships are men do: as accessories and vacations, not entire careers. But some advice to the blokes from reader Patrick: "Just as you wouldn't try to sell boating products in Mongolia, you shouldn't start a relationship with a 35-year-old and be surprised to discover she wants children. And a ring. Right away."
You don't need new red lacy undergarments for the first night.
Here's a newsflash: men don't know the difference between whether you've just dropped a small fortune on La Perla or whether you've bought your goods from Target. Better yet, as 100 per cent of the men I polled responded: "No underwear would make life a whole lot easier."
Men WILL say no to sex ... occasionally.
But they still expect foreplay anyway. As I read this out aloud while sitting having my hair ironed at the hair salon, a bloke walked past and began to laugh. "That's exactly right!" he exclaimed. "Most of the time, I won't say no. But if I do, then I still expect a little foreplay." Right...
Never believe what a man says when sex is on the cards.
Lyle says that 99 per cent of men definitely lie, cheat or steal, or throw their mothers in front of a bus to get laid. Robert says animals will do whatever they need to in order to survive. And Martin says men will sell their souls to the devil to get it. How's that for making us feel respected?
Men WILL separate sex from a relationship.
Particularly in the time of the booty call buddy and the age of the casual sex generation, women are still getting confused by this little tidbit. Men will have sex without emotional consequences while you may not, so don't let your boundaries fly out the window. Even Lady Gaga has renounced sex, saying it's unnecessary until the right person comes along. At least it's a start.
Men hate condoms.
Men often try to tell you that condoms will kill any romance. Don't buy into it. They all say that. It's your job to deflect it. His hairy situation is his situation - don't try to rectify it. Some women prefer them hairy, others prefer them hairless. But regardless of your personal opinion, never try to get a man to change his. Unless kissing him is like an exercise in dental-flossing, stay away from the snippers when it comes to his body.
Forget forcing him to watch chick flicks.
Men blame their hatred for anything with Hugh Grant in it or Julia Roberts on "poor screenplay and dialogue". But really we know that it's because they fear these flicks will move them emotionally. As for Sex and the City? "Manufactured with no creativity or originality," says Blake. Martin agrees. "What gets us? Samantha is NOT a real person, neither is Miranda! And you can't talk about them as if what happens in their lives is real. It isn't. Sure there are life lessons. We laugh, you cry and we laugh again. But just don't take it too far, it's kinda creepy."
The final word:
Ladies, in a nutshell, I've discovered that some of us (me) need to chill out a little. Let men watch sport, eat in silence, ignore your pleas to have "the talk" and know that men are simple creatures who like to chase women and rub their belly when they've had a feed. Oh, and if you really want to know the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Apparently there is only one way to do it. I'll leave the final word to Martin who says this: "Just wait till we orgasm and then get out your 20 questions and wait for the awful truth to come out. But be warned, the truth isn't always what you thought you wanted to hear ... "
"We're just having fun!" the men will answer. "Why do you women think about things so deeply?" they'll respond. "I'm a simple creature: I say it how it is." Oh, really? While I know every man worth his beige loafers might purport to be some easy-going carefree creature who likes nothing more than to be straight up (and a little dirty), the fact is men are mightily confusing.
I have no idea (most of the time) what their texts mean; if their "coffee" invitation is really a date (or just a test?); why they dump you one minute because they say they "don't want a girlfriend", but are engaged to some floozy the next. After interviewing thousands of men for over half a decade, I've come to one (rather dampening) conclusion: the male species is anything but simple, no matter how many times they tell you they're just into sex, steak, sports, beer, and more sex. Women are confused ... men are confused as to why.
The other day, when I got called over to a girlfriend's house to help her decipher some male behaviour that was being presented to her in the form of weird mixed messages and encrypted Facebook status updates, I noticed there was a book on her shelf titled Secrets About Men Every Woman Should Know. I decided to borrow it and, after flipping through the first few pages, I quickly realised that it's not so much their behaviour that baffles us, but about how we respond to it that makes all the difference. Boys will be boys (unfortunately Australia's Next Top Model marathons and couples window shopping are off the cards) and the sooner we learn how to deal with it, the saner we'll all become.
Apparently, (or so says author Barbara De Angelis), women have three choices about how to deal with men: get angry, give up entirely ("and buy a dog instead") or decide to "learn everything there is to know about understand and getting along with men". So, in light of taking on De Angelis's advice, I've spent the weekend interviewing the blokes ... and this is what I've come up with. Please feel free to tell me I'm wrong ...
His job comes first - before cuddles, sex and you.
A while back, I dated a man who was out of work (the financial crisis had just hit) and when I'd put too many long hours into my books or columns, drank too many cocktails with the girls or had a gaggle of male friends on speed dial (for work purposes!), he'd belittle and insult me. I knew it wasn't so much my actions that were upsetting him, but rather the fact he felt he had a lack of place and purpose in his life.
Steve Harvey, author of Act Like A Lady, Think Like a Man, helped me understand that. In the very first few pages of his book, he explains that, until a man has a title, job and income that he's proud of, he'll never be the man you want him to be. "If we aren't pursuing our dreams or chasing who we are, what we do, and how much we make, we're doomed. Dead," he writes. And until they find that, you are never going to be top priority. So don't even try to change him.
Men want you to talk to them.
Forget all the dating rules, books, regulations and fear of rejection: apparently the poor blokes have it way worse than we do. He's desperate to know if you're interested in him before he goes through the whole painstaking rigmarole of having to ask you out and risk having happen to him the one thing he's most afraid of in life: getting rejected. "I'm a man, I'm not a lion that may bite your head off," "So it's OK to come and say hi."
Forget every calorie you eat - blokes don't care.
While women might be jealous that stick-thin Sarah Jessica Parker can get away with wearing a pink tutu and diamond-encrusted boy-briefs (in public), the men still voted her as one of the most unattractive women in the world. They're more likely to go on a second date with a woman who chooses the steak over the side salad and you can bet your curling iron that he's not expecting muscular upper arms, a Victoria Secret-style six-pack or a butt to rival Kim Kardashian on the girl he's going to marry. He's just not. So stop obsessing about it. "Exercise like anyone else and enjoy a bloody ice-cream chocolate instead of a stupid herbal tea and some celery sticks. Then we'll take you out again."
Can men really do more than one thing at a time?
Martin says: "Sorry what? I'm watching the world cup ... you'll have to ask me that later." (True story.) If men are doing something that is important (sport), dangerous (driving in the snow) or what you are asking really doesn't warrant an answer (like who really is the bad girl on Desperate Housewives) then yes, they can only do one thing at a time. "Other than that we can multi-task well," says Martin. "As men we managed to f--- up the environment, start wars, rip off the poor, mistreat the disadvantaged and convince a variety of folks that our particular space daddy [god] is real. And I am pretty sure some of those things overlapped. So we can definitely multi-task." He has a point there.
Why men don't you LISTEN when you nag.
Here's where "simple" comes in. They're not thinking how they can please you by doing the dishes, folding the laundry or any other silly task you throw their way (which by the way, they probably think is unnecessary anyway). But rather they're thinking about what would be the quickest way to prevent this whole chat from not turning into World War III. Says Martin: "Instead of addressing the issue at hand we say whatever we can think in the moment to prevent you from going nuts, which only gets you more angry because we didn't say what you wanted to hear. Can I promise you I won't leave my underwear on the floor from now on? No I can't, because personally I don't see it as being a big deal. But if you want to discuss that, don't start the conversation by saying how we want different things in life; you come from a different upbringing; maybe having kids wouldn't be a good idea etc etc."
They know when you're desperate ... for their hand in marriage.
Men can't ask for directions, pick up their underwear or remember to buy Jennifer Aniston enough lemons, but there's one thing they're more intuitive about than anything else: a woman who is desperate. If husband hunting is a sport more appealing to you than NFL or bargain shopping, then you'd better find a way to see relationships are men do: as accessories and vacations, not entire careers. But some advice to the blokes from reader Patrick: "Just as you wouldn't try to sell boating products in Mongolia, you shouldn't start a relationship with a 35-year-old and be surprised to discover she wants children. And a ring. Right away."
You don't need new red lacy undergarments for the first night.
Here's a newsflash: men don't know the difference between whether you've just dropped a small fortune on La Perla or whether you've bought your goods from Target. Better yet, as 100 per cent of the men I polled responded: "No underwear would make life a whole lot easier."
Men WILL say no to sex ... occasionally.
But they still expect foreplay anyway. As I read this out aloud while sitting having my hair ironed at the hair salon, a bloke walked past and began to laugh. "That's exactly right!" he exclaimed. "Most of the time, I won't say no. But if I do, then I still expect a little foreplay." Right...
Never believe what a man says when sex is on the cards.
Lyle says that 99 per cent of men definitely lie, cheat or steal, or throw their mothers in front of a bus to get laid. Robert says animals will do whatever they need to in order to survive. And Martin says men will sell their souls to the devil to get it. How's that for making us feel respected?
Men WILL separate sex from a relationship.
Particularly in the time of the booty call buddy and the age of the casual sex generation, women are still getting confused by this little tidbit. Men will have sex without emotional consequences while you may not, so don't let your boundaries fly out the window. Even Lady Gaga has renounced sex, saying it's unnecessary until the right person comes along. At least it's a start.
Men hate condoms.
Men often try to tell you that condoms will kill any romance. Don't buy into it. They all say that. It's your job to deflect it. His hairy situation is his situation - don't try to rectify it. Some women prefer them hairy, others prefer them hairless. But regardless of your personal opinion, never try to get a man to change his. Unless kissing him is like an exercise in dental-flossing, stay away from the snippers when it comes to his body.
Forget forcing him to watch chick flicks.
Men blame their hatred for anything with Hugh Grant in it or Julia Roberts on "poor screenplay and dialogue". But really we know that it's because they fear these flicks will move them emotionally. As for Sex and the City? "Manufactured with no creativity or originality," says Blake. Martin agrees. "What gets us? Samantha is NOT a real person, neither is Miranda! And you can't talk about them as if what happens in their lives is real. It isn't. Sure there are life lessons. We laugh, you cry and we laugh again. But just don't take it too far, it's kinda creepy."
The final word:
Ladies, in a nutshell, I've discovered that some of us (me) need to chill out a little. Let men watch sport, eat in silence, ignore your pleas to have "the talk" and know that men are simple creatures who like to chase women and rub their belly when they've had a feed. Oh, and if you really want to know the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Apparently there is only one way to do it. I'll leave the final word to Martin who says this: "Just wait till we orgasm and then get out your 20 questions and wait for the awful truth to come out. But be warned, the truth isn't always what you thought you wanted to hear ... "
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Who really needs Facebook?
When I read a while back that Prince Harry was deeply hurt when his ex-girlfriend Chelsy Davy changed her Facebook status to "is now single", I never thought I'd get caught up in anything remotely like that.
Sure, I've fielded some teary phone calls from devastated folk wondering who the hell their partner is smiling so happily with in a photo, or why the hell their ex has changed their status to "in a new relationship" before they've even had a chance to go on a new date with someone else. But I've always thought it was a rather childish way to make a statement. Why let the whole world (or at least 1000 of your closest friends) in on your private relationship business?
Yet a few weeks after my BFB*, a friend let me in on what had recently transpired: my ex had changed his Facebook status to "single". A little shocked that it had come to that, I promptly did the same. A competition ensued: who could get more pokes, prods and nude photos sent to their inbox? Who was living a more exciting life? (Or at least who appeared to be by their carefully selected, airbrushed, pre-approved photos?)
Status changes aren't the only thing getting keen Facebook users knickers in a knot.
Ever heard of the "honey pot" theory? Neither had I until recently, when a woman we'll call L - who suspected her man was doing the dirty behind her back - emailed to tell me she'd created a fake Facebook profile named "Mandi" in an attempt to catch out her boyfriend (who was displaying increasingly dodgy behaviour - such as being glued to his phone during date nights together).
The profile she set up was of a sexy, pouting blonde in a skimpy bikini complete with fake boobs, plumped-up lips and more navel showing than Cristiano Ronaldo on the cover of the latest issue of Vanity Fair magazine. I don't know where she got the photo from (I assume doing so is against the law so I'll leave that one alone) but in the excitement of it all, she forgot one important thing: no good can come out of the honey pot.
If her boyfriend dares to flirt back with "Mandi", does she confront him about it? And what exactly would she be catching him out doing? Talking? What if he doesn't take the bait, or worse - what if he discovers it was really her behind the sordid messages attempting to lure him in? As they say, sometimes doing the snooping shows a worse sense of character and mistrust than the person they're snooping on.
Yet if you're one of those people who is sitting there right now casually perusing your high school buddies' status updates, playing a spot of Facebook Chess or joining groups such as "Bro, she got an AVO against me", "If 1 million people join this group, nothing will happen", or "1000 reasons why north is better than the south", then (like I once did) you are probably thinking that the "Mandi" situation might just be a little too paranoid, stalkerish or bordering on psychotic for comfort.
Yet, a quick poll of my Facebook buddies found she might not be so far off the mark after all.
Plus-sized model Brooke tells me she gets flirted with, asked out and propositioned all the time on Facebook by married or taken people, despite her "in a relationship" status clearly displayed on her profile.
Basketball player Stephen says he got caught up flirting with a married woman, yet he swears to me: "She never told me she was married till I got a message from her husband!" (He's also wondering where all the decent women are ... Facebook me for his details if you're interested.)
A while back a married man struck up a friendship with a girlfriend of mine via Facebook, only to find out later on that not only was he was Facebooking 25 other women all at once, but many of them were mutual friends of his wife. Yeouch.
I often wonder what goes on inside the sordid mind of someone like that, but I guess we all know the types too well: they need every bit of social proof they can get their sweaty hands on to boost the fledgling egos, all the while cackling to themselves as desperate women flock to their Facebook profiles and get turned on by the nude photos of their bottom halves that they regularly dish out to unsuspecting suitors. (True story.)
I admit I spend more than my fair share on the site but, seriously, any married or taken person who sits all day flirting with unsuspecting singles seriously needs to re-examine their priorities in life. Or at least take up Facebook Chess instead.
As for L? Her boyfriend did end up flirting back, propositioning her to meet up that weekend and even asked if she'd like him to book a hotel room for the two of them. So now she's in a dire dilemma. What should she do? Confront him about it? Go to the hotel herself? Or ignore the whole thing and chalk it down to innocent "talking" simply caused by the wrath of the honey pot that is known as Facebook ...
Sure, I've fielded some teary phone calls from devastated folk wondering who the hell their partner is smiling so happily with in a photo, or why the hell their ex has changed their status to "in a new relationship" before they've even had a chance to go on a new date with someone else. But I've always thought it was a rather childish way to make a statement. Why let the whole world (or at least 1000 of your closest friends) in on your private relationship business?
Yet a few weeks after my BFB*, a friend let me in on what had recently transpired: my ex had changed his Facebook status to "single". A little shocked that it had come to that, I promptly did the same. A competition ensued: who could get more pokes, prods and nude photos sent to their inbox? Who was living a more exciting life? (Or at least who appeared to be by their carefully selected, airbrushed, pre-approved photos?)
Status changes aren't the only thing getting keen Facebook users knickers in a knot.
Ever heard of the "honey pot" theory? Neither had I until recently, when a woman we'll call L - who suspected her man was doing the dirty behind her back - emailed to tell me she'd created a fake Facebook profile named "Mandi" in an attempt to catch out her boyfriend (who was displaying increasingly dodgy behaviour - such as being glued to his phone during date nights together).
The profile she set up was of a sexy, pouting blonde in a skimpy bikini complete with fake boobs, plumped-up lips and more navel showing than Cristiano Ronaldo on the cover of the latest issue of Vanity Fair magazine. I don't know where she got the photo from (I assume doing so is against the law so I'll leave that one alone) but in the excitement of it all, she forgot one important thing: no good can come out of the honey pot.
If her boyfriend dares to flirt back with "Mandi", does she confront him about it? And what exactly would she be catching him out doing? Talking? What if he doesn't take the bait, or worse - what if he discovers it was really her behind the sordid messages attempting to lure him in? As they say, sometimes doing the snooping shows a worse sense of character and mistrust than the person they're snooping on.
Yet if you're one of those people who is sitting there right now casually perusing your high school buddies' status updates, playing a spot of Facebook Chess or joining groups such as "Bro, she got an AVO against me", "If 1 million people join this group, nothing will happen", or "1000 reasons why north is better than the south", then (like I once did) you are probably thinking that the "Mandi" situation might just be a little too paranoid, stalkerish or bordering on psychotic for comfort.
Yet, a quick poll of my Facebook buddies found she might not be so far off the mark after all.
Plus-sized model Brooke tells me she gets flirted with, asked out and propositioned all the time on Facebook by married or taken people, despite her "in a relationship" status clearly displayed on her profile.
Basketball player Stephen says he got caught up flirting with a married woman, yet he swears to me: "She never told me she was married till I got a message from her husband!" (He's also wondering where all the decent women are ... Facebook me for his details if you're interested.)
A while back a married man struck up a friendship with a girlfriend of mine via Facebook, only to find out later on that not only was he was Facebooking 25 other women all at once, but many of them were mutual friends of his wife. Yeouch.
I often wonder what goes on inside the sordid mind of someone like that, but I guess we all know the types too well: they need every bit of social proof they can get their sweaty hands on to boost the fledgling egos, all the while cackling to themselves as desperate women flock to their Facebook profiles and get turned on by the nude photos of their bottom halves that they regularly dish out to unsuspecting suitors. (True story.)
I admit I spend more than my fair share on the site but, seriously, any married or taken person who sits all day flirting with unsuspecting singles seriously needs to re-examine their priorities in life. Or at least take up Facebook Chess instead.
As for L? Her boyfriend did end up flirting back, propositioning her to meet up that weekend and even asked if she'd like him to book a hotel room for the two of them. So now she's in a dire dilemma. What should she do? Confront him about it? Go to the hotel herself? Or ignore the whole thing and chalk it down to innocent "talking" simply caused by the wrath of the honey pot that is known as Facebook ...
Monday, June 14, 2010
Living out loud: Are we all better off coupled up?
"I need a man! With a man in my life, I'm 50 per cent better than I am without one," my single girlfriend recently complained to me.
Do you know what really bugs me? Just that sentiment. It is the cliche-ridden rubbish that single women (who are desperate to find a man) are led to believe. And who can blame them?
Thanks to the constant news headlines and supposed scientific research that goes into attempting to prove that coupled-up folk have it better than the rest of us, it's easy to see why so many are under the impression that they're just not performing as well as they could if they could latch on to someone else.
"Married people live longer!" say the experts. "Couples live healthier lifestyles than singletons!" say the studies. "Married people are better off!" they tell us constantly.
I admit that I used to be one of those women who always needed to be in a relationship. Having not been single for more than a few weeks at a time (at least not since my first high-school boyfriend taught me how to drive manual - oh the need for men!), I've spent most of my life enjoying having someone by my side to watch DVDs, help me with my taxes, share takeaways, pay half the rent, do the cooking (I make a mean lasagne but there's nothing better than a romantic meal cooked by him) and I have snickered to myself at never having to attend a wedding or social function alone. (Oh, the shame!)
Hanging on to someone else and having my existence validated by being "partnered up" felt like the natural thing to do. So I relied on a partner to fulfil me and, yes, I feared that I would be 50 per cent less productive (and 50 per cent less accepted by society) without one.
Yet, since I've become single, older and more cantankerous, I've realised that perhaps taking a little responsibility for one's self, without having someone to pick up the pieces when things don't go to plan, isn't such a scary step after all.
Since the BFB (big effing break-up), I've saved more money, moved house (twice), met more men then I can shake a stick at (and some who I've needed to hit with a stick), increased my social circle tenfold, enrolled in a psychology course, written another book proposal and upped my gym training schedule. (I can actually start to see my abs!)
And I'm not alone.
A real-estate agent friend tells me that, when her long-term relationship ended after her engagement fell through, she began to put all her energy into her business. It subsequently doubled.
"My schedule is so hectic that, when I'm not at work, I'm having dinner with clients or doing auctions on the weekend. Where would a boyfriend even fit in right now?"
After my beautician friend become single (and had a meltdown that lasted longer than her actual relationship), she picked up her heels, drew up building plans, opened up her own salon and now isn't exactly sure why she didn't have the courage or smarts to do it sooner. Oh yes, she was ensconced in a demanding relationship whereby all her spare time was spent cooking him his favorite meals, picking up his socks and nagging him to do the darn dishes once in a while.
So, are relationships distracting? Or do some people really perform better in a twosome? Is it different for men than for women? And is it true that, behind every good man, there needs to be a better woman, supporting him in the wings?
I wasn't too shocked to read the other day that when Socceroos star Harry Kewell's career took off, his actress wife Sheree Murphy quit the TV soap she'd been on for six years to focus on looking after her husband and support him in his career. There are many other women out there who do the same (and whose husbands demand it), which makes me wonder if men really are the needier sex.
In fact, perhaps we should stop blaming single women for being desperate for a partner and start to look at the men instead. After all, many of them don't seem to think they'd be able to get by unless they have a woman cooking their eggs and ironing their shirts.
But back to the topic. When it comes to whether or not we're better off in a relationship, I think it all comes down to the type of relationship you're in. I don't think we can say that being in any relationship is better than being single. Being in a bad relationship can be more detrimental to one's health, well-being and work habits. I would know. Yet others, perhaps those who believe they truly have found "the one", can confidently say that their partner is the catalyst and the key to their success.
So perhaps my girlfriend should change her attitude and, instead of believing that she'll be better off if only she were coupled-up with anyone, it's the supportive, team sort of partnership that we should all aim for. And if we can't seem to find it, we should just simply enjoy being alone and focus on putting our spare energy into ourselves instead ...
Do you know what really bugs me? Just that sentiment. It is the cliche-ridden rubbish that single women (who are desperate to find a man) are led to believe. And who can blame them?
Thanks to the constant news headlines and supposed scientific research that goes into attempting to prove that coupled-up folk have it better than the rest of us, it's easy to see why so many are under the impression that they're just not performing as well as they could if they could latch on to someone else.
"Married people live longer!" say the experts. "Couples live healthier lifestyles than singletons!" say the studies. "Married people are better off!" they tell us constantly.
I admit that I used to be one of those women who always needed to be in a relationship. Having not been single for more than a few weeks at a time (at least not since my first high-school boyfriend taught me how to drive manual - oh the need for men!), I've spent most of my life enjoying having someone by my side to watch DVDs, help me with my taxes, share takeaways, pay half the rent, do the cooking (I make a mean lasagne but there's nothing better than a romantic meal cooked by him) and I have snickered to myself at never having to attend a wedding or social function alone. (Oh, the shame!)
Hanging on to someone else and having my existence validated by being "partnered up" felt like the natural thing to do. So I relied on a partner to fulfil me and, yes, I feared that I would be 50 per cent less productive (and 50 per cent less accepted by society) without one.
Yet, since I've become single, older and more cantankerous, I've realised that perhaps taking a little responsibility for one's self, without having someone to pick up the pieces when things don't go to plan, isn't such a scary step after all.
Since the BFB (big effing break-up), I've saved more money, moved house (twice), met more men then I can shake a stick at (and some who I've needed to hit with a stick), increased my social circle tenfold, enrolled in a psychology course, written another book proposal and upped my gym training schedule. (I can actually start to see my abs!)
And I'm not alone.
A real-estate agent friend tells me that, when her long-term relationship ended after her engagement fell through, she began to put all her energy into her business. It subsequently doubled.
"My schedule is so hectic that, when I'm not at work, I'm having dinner with clients or doing auctions on the weekend. Where would a boyfriend even fit in right now?"
After my beautician friend become single (and had a meltdown that lasted longer than her actual relationship), she picked up her heels, drew up building plans, opened up her own salon and now isn't exactly sure why she didn't have the courage or smarts to do it sooner. Oh yes, she was ensconced in a demanding relationship whereby all her spare time was spent cooking him his favorite meals, picking up his socks and nagging him to do the darn dishes once in a while.
So, are relationships distracting? Or do some people really perform better in a twosome? Is it different for men than for women? And is it true that, behind every good man, there needs to be a better woman, supporting him in the wings?
I wasn't too shocked to read the other day that when Socceroos star Harry Kewell's career took off, his actress wife Sheree Murphy quit the TV soap she'd been on for six years to focus on looking after her husband and support him in his career. There are many other women out there who do the same (and whose husbands demand it), which makes me wonder if men really are the needier sex.
In fact, perhaps we should stop blaming single women for being desperate for a partner and start to look at the men instead. After all, many of them don't seem to think they'd be able to get by unless they have a woman cooking their eggs and ironing their shirts.
But back to the topic. When it comes to whether or not we're better off in a relationship, I think it all comes down to the type of relationship you're in. I don't think we can say that being in any relationship is better than being single. Being in a bad relationship can be more detrimental to one's health, well-being and work habits. I would know. Yet others, perhaps those who believe they truly have found "the one", can confidently say that their partner is the catalyst and the key to their success.
So perhaps my girlfriend should change her attitude and, instead of believing that she'll be better off if only she were coupled-up with anyone, it's the supportive, team sort of partnership that we should all aim for. And if we can't seem to find it, we should just simply enjoy being alone and focus on putting our spare energy into ourselves instead ...
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Why is it so hard to find a good girl?
Exploring the dating scene over the past few weeks, I've discovered there's a new test by which men will judge women: is she a good girl, or bad?
Drugs, sex and your partying habits come up on the very first date (usually before the appetisers are served), enabling a bloke to decipher quickly whether you're a keeper, or best kept as a one-night stand.
Which is all very well considering everyone has their own dating standards. But these days, what exactly are men looking for?
I've been dumped by a party boy because I don't do drugs. I've been dumped by a man who thought my social schedule was a little too busy for his liking. And I've had to deflect a third who asked me to send him revealing photos of myself to prove I was "adventurous". (Was he kidding?!)
But the trouble I've found is that many single women have come to the conclusion that the badder they portray themselves, the better their chances are.
Go-girl attitudes have been replaced with a go-naughty-girl sentiment. Female-on-female kissing is deemed cool. Pernicious teenage pop tart Ke$ha proudly says she brushes her teeth with Jack Daniels (badddd to the bone!). Snooki, on MTV's Jersey Shore drinks like a fish, swears like a trooper and dresses like a corner-street hooker. And comedian Chelsea Handler prides herself on being a vodka-swigging potty-mouthed bad girl. ("She's hot!" one date recently told me after she said an expletive three times in a row on her TV show. Hmmm.)
Even supermodel Miranda Kerr - the epitome of a health-conscious natural beauty who practises Nichiren Buddhism (a Japanese branch of Buddhism), supported the koalas by chaining herself to a tree (nude) and, says her Wikipedia page, lives on a diet of fresh fruit, steamed veg and fish - recently posed for a photo shoot far removed from her good-girl image: as a platinum blonde-haired schoolgirl sucking on a cigarette.
Do men really dig this new look?
A quick poll of blokes found reactions to a smoking schoolgirl to be divided. But, either way, there's a definite shift in female behaviour.
While I'm not quite sure when it occurred, I remember a while back watching a story on CNN News in which reporter Carol Costellos blamed this "dangerous trend" of bad-girl behaviour on the "third wave of feminism". She said this sort of behaviour had become a "badge of honour" as women celebrate the worst of frat boy behaviour as a way to female empowerment.
Female empowerment? Feminism? Really?
I know from the blokes that women have indeed become more aggressive, sexually liberated and open, and that forward dating tactics are on the rise. But I think the question we need to ask is: why? Are men responding positively to it all? Or are they mightily turned off?
My friend Jason thinks the latter. While at a casino recently, he was picked up by a woman - an act of sexual liberation that left him a little perplexed. "She was dressed like a good girl in a conservative outfit, but then, when she sat next to me, she not only begged me to take her number, but begged me to take her home with me. It was weird and extremely unappealing."
He says that while it can sometimes be flattering to be asked out, when she is so aggressively persistent, it's simply not appealing.
"I will always ask a girl to stay at my place on the first night, but deep down I don't want them to sleep with me. I want them to resist. If they don't, it makes them out to be a slut. At the end of the day, I want a good girl not a bad one."
But some men beg to differ. When I polled colleagues over the Kerr cigarette photo shoot, Bruno said he didn't have a problem with the image she was trying to portray. "Men love damaged and vulnerable chicks," he said.
Martin disagreed. "I always ask: does she have a brain? If not, then I'm not interested. There are plenty of beautiful intelligent women around, so why waste time with an airhead?"
And Dante said: "Bad girls are good for short term but good girls for the long term. However, good girls are almost non-existent. You probably have a better chance with the lotto!"
I've spoken to, and interviewed, enough men over the years to know that, while they might pretend to be impressed by bad behaviour, they're not looking for a girlfriend, but a girl to boost their ego.
Who is more appealing? The party girl or the homebody? The bad girl or the nice one? The sexually explicit woman or the demure and mysterious femme?
Drugs, sex and your partying habits come up on the very first date (usually before the appetisers are served), enabling a bloke to decipher quickly whether you're a keeper, or best kept as a one-night stand.
Which is all very well considering everyone has their own dating standards. But these days, what exactly are men looking for?
I've been dumped by a party boy because I don't do drugs. I've been dumped by a man who thought my social schedule was a little too busy for his liking. And I've had to deflect a third who asked me to send him revealing photos of myself to prove I was "adventurous". (Was he kidding?!)
But the trouble I've found is that many single women have come to the conclusion that the badder they portray themselves, the better their chances are.
Go-girl attitudes have been replaced with a go-naughty-girl sentiment. Female-on-female kissing is deemed cool. Pernicious teenage pop tart Ke$ha proudly says she brushes her teeth with Jack Daniels (badddd to the bone!). Snooki, on MTV's Jersey Shore drinks like a fish, swears like a trooper and dresses like a corner-street hooker. And comedian Chelsea Handler prides herself on being a vodka-swigging potty-mouthed bad girl. ("She's hot!" one date recently told me after she said an expletive three times in a row on her TV show. Hmmm.)
Even supermodel Miranda Kerr - the epitome of a health-conscious natural beauty who practises Nichiren Buddhism (a Japanese branch of Buddhism), supported the koalas by chaining herself to a tree (nude) and, says her Wikipedia page, lives on a diet of fresh fruit, steamed veg and fish - recently posed for a photo shoot far removed from her good-girl image: as a platinum blonde-haired schoolgirl sucking on a cigarette.
Do men really dig this new look?
A quick poll of blokes found reactions to a smoking schoolgirl to be divided. But, either way, there's a definite shift in female behaviour.
While I'm not quite sure when it occurred, I remember a while back watching a story on CNN News in which reporter Carol Costellos blamed this "dangerous trend" of bad-girl behaviour on the "third wave of feminism". She said this sort of behaviour had become a "badge of honour" as women celebrate the worst of frat boy behaviour as a way to female empowerment.
Female empowerment? Feminism? Really?
I know from the blokes that women have indeed become more aggressive, sexually liberated and open, and that forward dating tactics are on the rise. But I think the question we need to ask is: why? Are men responding positively to it all? Or are they mightily turned off?
My friend Jason thinks the latter. While at a casino recently, he was picked up by a woman - an act of sexual liberation that left him a little perplexed. "She was dressed like a good girl in a conservative outfit, but then, when she sat next to me, she not only begged me to take her number, but begged me to take her home with me. It was weird and extremely unappealing."
He says that while it can sometimes be flattering to be asked out, when she is so aggressively persistent, it's simply not appealing.
"I will always ask a girl to stay at my place on the first night, but deep down I don't want them to sleep with me. I want them to resist. If they don't, it makes them out to be a slut. At the end of the day, I want a good girl not a bad one."
But some men beg to differ. When I polled colleagues over the Kerr cigarette photo shoot, Bruno said he didn't have a problem with the image she was trying to portray. "Men love damaged and vulnerable chicks," he said.
Martin disagreed. "I always ask: does she have a brain? If not, then I'm not interested. There are plenty of beautiful intelligent women around, so why waste time with an airhead?"
And Dante said: "Bad girls are good for short term but good girls for the long term. However, good girls are almost non-existent. You probably have a better chance with the lotto!"
I've spoken to, and interviewed, enough men over the years to know that, while they might pretend to be impressed by bad behaviour, they're not looking for a girlfriend, but a girl to boost their ego.
Who is more appealing? The party girl or the homebody? The bad girl or the nice one? The sexually explicit woman or the demure and mysterious femme?
Monday, June 7, 2010
Are all men really bastards?
As a dating expert, I've decided to take my own (and plenty of your) advice.
Recent posts have suggested that one reason we find ourselves without a mate is that we're trying too hard and that instead, getting to know ourselves and spending some time alone may be a better approach than hours spent in crowded bars.
As a male friend said to me the other day: no woman will be able to find a man until she can spend five straight days at home by herself.
"Running around town in search of a man is unappealing," he says. "Go within for a little while and have your own life going on."
So I've decided to take the challenge. So far I'm one night in.
It was staying in that got me thinking about how to find the right man and importantly how to avoid the bad one. I was home watching the classic film French Kiss and I was struck by a scene in which Meg Ryan's character tells a friend: "I never thought I'd be the type to say this, but it's true. All men are bastards."
But I don't think that's true. Of course, I'm not saying that the thought hadn't crossed my mind before. After all, who of us single women haven't been carried away by the charms of a hideously handsome, narcissistic, self-obsessed playboy (who's already literally charmed the pants off half our circle of friends) despite knowing very well what we were up for from the start?
But there comes a time in a woman's life when she turns around and thinks ... Do I really have to support another out-of-work couch potato just so I'm not lonely? Do I really have to worry about my boyfriend bonking his secretary the minute I turn my back? Rescue another addict from a drug habit? Really?
Dating bad men, playboys or narcissists has been well-documented as our number one dating dilemma. Yet according to the Great Man Survey (during which I surveyed more than 1500 men last year for my book The Chase), only 27 per cent of male respondents categorised themselves as a bad boy.
"Who wants to be known as that?" one man said. "I try and do my best I can to not hurt women. Unfortunately their actions sometimes cause me to pull away ... sometimes a little too soon for their liking."
Of course the men could all be lying (or it could all be part of their game to pretend to be the nice guy) but, with so many men attempting to do the right thing by the fairer sex, why is it that so many women think all men are bastards?
After a bit more research, I discovered that it might not be the men, but actually ourselves, who are causing all the problems ...
You hang out in the wrong places
When you spend all your free time in pubs, clubs or bars in an attempt to meet your soul mate, you're meeting less than 1 per cent of the male population. And guess what? That 1 per cent is not looking for a stable, loving, long-term relationship but rather the quickest and cheapest way to bonk and flee. And in addition to the disappointing line-up, all that partying wreaks havoc on your looks, not to mention your liver.
You're a commitment-phobe
Yep, it's a female conundrum too: commitment scares the heck out of many women I've recently polled, despite the common belief that all women simply want to get married and end up happily ever after for all eternity with Mr Prince Charming. "I just don't know if I believe in the notion of 'forever with the same person'," one woman exclaimed. Who would have thought it was a female issue too?
You hate men
Here's a female issue that many women suffer from but are never likely to admit: they simply don't like dudes. They don't trust 'em, can't commit to them and refuse to acknowledge that there are any decent guys out there because they've been so hurt, heartbroken, jaded and let down by blokes in the past. And the more this happens, the further down the gurgler their self-esteem goes and the less likely they are to attract a good man or even notice one even if he's right under their noses.
But why does this happen to some women and not others?
You have father issues
John Aiken, author of Accidentally Single, why some women, including my close girlfriend Jill, don't trust men.
He says that there can be a myriad reasons, but it often stems from childhood parental relationships.
"Women who have been let down by a significant role model in their life tend to fall into this category. Their father might have left the family, cheated on their mother, been absent during their upbringing, broken promises or abused them. It sets up unhealthy beliefs that men can't be trusted and then often what happens is when they grow up they set these expectations up by choosing guys that are players who are going to break their trust."
The solutions
Aiken says that these father issues can result in women choosing a guy who is a player, travels most of the time, drinks too much, does drugs or has a bad reputation. In order to avoid ending up like Jill, he gives his five-step program to combating this pattern:
* Understand your patterns and be aware of the signs. Analyse your past relationships and look at the types of men you were choosing.
* Start avoiding men who break your trust and start to see red flags early on before things get serious.
* Surround yourself with safe trustworthy people and men.
* Go after men who are more trustworthy and who you would normally overlook.
* Stop the negativity! Make a pact with yourself to stop running down men in public or to girlfriends. Stop saying that all men are bastards. Because that is going to keep you single.
But back to the staying-in challenge. So far I've had to cancel dates, avoid calling back an old friend (who wants to catch up for a cocktail at a single's mixer later in the week) and had to whip out my rusty old cook book to avoid the temptation to eat out. Thank goodness it's a rainy...
Recent posts have suggested that one reason we find ourselves without a mate is that we're trying too hard and that instead, getting to know ourselves and spending some time alone may be a better approach than hours spent in crowded bars.
As a male friend said to me the other day: no woman will be able to find a man until she can spend five straight days at home by herself.
"Running around town in search of a man is unappealing," he says. "Go within for a little while and have your own life going on."
So I've decided to take the challenge. So far I'm one night in.
It was staying in that got me thinking about how to find the right man and importantly how to avoid the bad one. I was home watching the classic film French Kiss and I was struck by a scene in which Meg Ryan's character tells a friend: "I never thought I'd be the type to say this, but it's true. All men are bastards."
But I don't think that's true. Of course, I'm not saying that the thought hadn't crossed my mind before. After all, who of us single women haven't been carried away by the charms of a hideously handsome, narcissistic, self-obsessed playboy (who's already literally charmed the pants off half our circle of friends) despite knowing very well what we were up for from the start?
But there comes a time in a woman's life when she turns around and thinks ... Do I really have to support another out-of-work couch potato just so I'm not lonely? Do I really have to worry about my boyfriend bonking his secretary the minute I turn my back? Rescue another addict from a drug habit? Really?
Dating bad men, playboys or narcissists has been well-documented as our number one dating dilemma. Yet according to the Great Man Survey (during which I surveyed more than 1500 men last year for my book The Chase), only 27 per cent of male respondents categorised themselves as a bad boy.
"Who wants to be known as that?" one man said. "I try and do my best I can to not hurt women. Unfortunately their actions sometimes cause me to pull away ... sometimes a little too soon for their liking."
Of course the men could all be lying (or it could all be part of their game to pretend to be the nice guy) but, with so many men attempting to do the right thing by the fairer sex, why is it that so many women think all men are bastards?
After a bit more research, I discovered that it might not be the men, but actually ourselves, who are causing all the problems ...
You hang out in the wrong places
When you spend all your free time in pubs, clubs or bars in an attempt to meet your soul mate, you're meeting less than 1 per cent of the male population. And guess what? That 1 per cent is not looking for a stable, loving, long-term relationship but rather the quickest and cheapest way to bonk and flee. And in addition to the disappointing line-up, all that partying wreaks havoc on your looks, not to mention your liver.
You're a commitment-phobe
Yep, it's a female conundrum too: commitment scares the heck out of many women I've recently polled, despite the common belief that all women simply want to get married and end up happily ever after for all eternity with Mr Prince Charming. "I just don't know if I believe in the notion of 'forever with the same person'," one woman exclaimed. Who would have thought it was a female issue too?
You hate men
Here's a female issue that many women suffer from but are never likely to admit: they simply don't like dudes. They don't trust 'em, can't commit to them and refuse to acknowledge that there are any decent guys out there because they've been so hurt, heartbroken, jaded and let down by blokes in the past. And the more this happens, the further down the gurgler their self-esteem goes and the less likely they are to attract a good man or even notice one even if he's right under their noses.
But why does this happen to some women and not others?
You have father issues
John Aiken, author of Accidentally Single, why some women, including my close girlfriend Jill, don't trust men.
He says that there can be a myriad reasons, but it often stems from childhood parental relationships.
"Women who have been let down by a significant role model in their life tend to fall into this category. Their father might have left the family, cheated on their mother, been absent during their upbringing, broken promises or abused them. It sets up unhealthy beliefs that men can't be trusted and then often what happens is when they grow up they set these expectations up by choosing guys that are players who are going to break their trust."
The solutions
Aiken says that these father issues can result in women choosing a guy who is a player, travels most of the time, drinks too much, does drugs or has a bad reputation. In order to avoid ending up like Jill, he gives his five-step program to combating this pattern:
* Understand your patterns and be aware of the signs. Analyse your past relationships and look at the types of men you were choosing.
* Start avoiding men who break your trust and start to see red flags early on before things get serious.
* Surround yourself with safe trustworthy people and men.
* Go after men who are more trustworthy and who you would normally overlook.
* Stop the negativity! Make a pact with yourself to stop running down men in public or to girlfriends. Stop saying that all men are bastards. Because that is going to keep you single.
But back to the staying-in challenge. So far I've had to cancel dates, avoid calling back an old friend (who wants to catch up for a cocktail at a single's mixer later in the week) and had to whip out my rusty old cook book to avoid the temptation to eat out. Thank goodness it's a rainy...
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
The Ex-Factor
It's so much easier to look backwards than move forwards. Take Sienna Miller for example. After everything that had happened, she went back to her ex-boyfriend Jude Law. After a roller-coaster ride on the dating scene, no wonder she decided that getting back together with a lying, cheating cad of a playboy was a better option than dating blokes who are still married, have more baggage than Victoria Beckham on a long-haul flight, or, maybe, being alone.
It's part of the classic break-up cycle and this is how it goes: you date, you dump (or get dumped), you cry, you hate, you stalk, you pick yourself up and attempt to move on. You party like it's 1999 and then wake up one day and realise that you haven't moved on at all. Single life becomes about as appealing as chewing your own toenails and then you enter the next break-up phase: the I-want-my-ex-back stage. You start to wonder if they really were the best you're ever going to get. As they say, better the devil you know.
At first, dating a long-time-ago ex sounds rather appealing. After all, you dated them once before, so what's the harm in giving it another go? Forget about why you dumped them the first time around - perhaps they've changed. Maybe they've matured. Perhaps they've ditched their drinking/smoking/commitment-phobic behaviour and have morphed into the perfect, doting, ring-buying boyfriend! Yes. It's bound to work.
But is rekindling an old flame just falling into the same pattern all over again? Is it defeating the whole purpose of learning from your past relationship, making new mistakes and then moving forward?
Being single again I decided to do an audit of my exes to see if there was something I had missed the first time around. Ex hunting is probably a sport best practised anonymously. Ask friends of friends to scope out their relationship status, stalk their Facebook pages for any signs of a wedding photos and corner them at the supermarket while casually mentioning your name and the fact that you're newly single.
I decided to take the direct approach. One told me he's happily in a relationship with his girlfriend and one suggests a booty call. "For old time's sake," he says with a wink.
What was I looking for? What was I thinking!
What I quickly discovered was that, while the sparks have all but evaporated, the suggestion that all the good ones are married, taken or gay is just not true. The good ones are still around. They just haven't found someone who rocks their world quite yet.
What I learnt about myself from the ex-hunting experience was perfectly articulated (for once) by The Hills reality star Heidi Montag who recently exclaimed about her soon-to-be-ex hubby (or so we hope!) Spencer Pratt: "Who am I without him?"
I too have felt lost without a man by my side. But a disappointing outcome in my ex-hunting expedition helped me realise that I, like so many singles out there, seem to crave the feeling of being safe, secure, loved and sheltered from the treacherous game-playing world by someone who already knows all your faults and foibles.
But did I really miss all those exes for their riveting personalities and warm hearts? Or did I simply miss being someone's girlfriend without all the mind games? I still don't know the answer. But one thing I know for certain is this: ex hunting can sometimes be a therapeutic and even successful dating sport. Just ask Sienna Miller.
After all, we deserve a second chance, don't we?
It's part of the classic break-up cycle and this is how it goes: you date, you dump (or get dumped), you cry, you hate, you stalk, you pick yourself up and attempt to move on. You party like it's 1999 and then wake up one day and realise that you haven't moved on at all. Single life becomes about as appealing as chewing your own toenails and then you enter the next break-up phase: the I-want-my-ex-back stage. You start to wonder if they really were the best you're ever going to get. As they say, better the devil you know.
At first, dating a long-time-ago ex sounds rather appealing. After all, you dated them once before, so what's the harm in giving it another go? Forget about why you dumped them the first time around - perhaps they've changed. Maybe they've matured. Perhaps they've ditched their drinking/smoking/commitment-phobic behaviour and have morphed into the perfect, doting, ring-buying boyfriend! Yes. It's bound to work.
But is rekindling an old flame just falling into the same pattern all over again? Is it defeating the whole purpose of learning from your past relationship, making new mistakes and then moving forward?
Being single again I decided to do an audit of my exes to see if there was something I had missed the first time around. Ex hunting is probably a sport best practised anonymously. Ask friends of friends to scope out their relationship status, stalk their Facebook pages for any signs of a wedding photos and corner them at the supermarket while casually mentioning your name and the fact that you're newly single.
I decided to take the direct approach. One told me he's happily in a relationship with his girlfriend and one suggests a booty call. "For old time's sake," he says with a wink.
What was I looking for? What was I thinking!
What I quickly discovered was that, while the sparks have all but evaporated, the suggestion that all the good ones are married, taken or gay is just not true. The good ones are still around. They just haven't found someone who rocks their world quite yet.
What I learnt about myself from the ex-hunting experience was perfectly articulated (for once) by The Hills reality star Heidi Montag who recently exclaimed about her soon-to-be-ex hubby (or so we hope!) Spencer Pratt: "Who am I without him?"
I too have felt lost without a man by my side. But a disappointing outcome in my ex-hunting expedition helped me realise that I, like so many singles out there, seem to crave the feeling of being safe, secure, loved and sheltered from the treacherous game-playing world by someone who already knows all your faults and foibles.
But did I really miss all those exes for their riveting personalities and warm hearts? Or did I simply miss being someone's girlfriend without all the mind games? I still don't know the answer. But one thing I know for certain is this: ex hunting can sometimes be a therapeutic and even successful dating sport. Just ask Sienna Miller.
After all, we deserve a second chance, don't we?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)