The Big O*

Dear Old Fashioned & Obsolete,

Back when I was in 7th Grade Home Ec class**, we had to do this stupid workbook assignent each week that was basically about self esteem and self awareness. The ONLY thing that I remember from this course, other than how to make chicken nuggets in the oven, is a tool discussed in the workbook -- the Three Legged Stool of Self Confidence. I don't have any clue what those three legs were, but the point is that self confidence was like a three legged stool, and if any of those legs was wobbly, unstable, shorter or thinner than the other, the stool wouldn't hold up to weight. Thus, it was important to be a well-rounded individual, made of equal parts of hard wood.

Or something like that.

When it comes right down to it, a relationship isn't that different -- it's a three legged stool,*** comprised of equal parts of physical intimacy, emotional connection, and intellectual stimulation. If any of those pieces are missing or unstable, the whole structure suffers, and ultimately, can't bear weight. NOW, do I think that means you should hop into bed with everybody on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd date? Absolutely not. I mean, if you both WANT to do that, go for it -- but I don't think that's necessary, and frankly, I usually find it refreshing when the guy doesn't ASSUME that's happening. I'm a little old fashioned about such issues -- been known to wait MONTHS before doing the deed with a new boyfriend -- but penetration or no, if I don't feel like this guy WANTS me... I lose interest.

WHY? Because as previously addressed in this blog, I wanna be the girl.

I want to be chased.
I want to be WANTED.

We spend hours dreaming up outfits and picking shoes, say nothing of makeup and gossip and waxing pink parts, all in the hopes that it's not without reason -- so while we're probably ALSO not committed or keyed up about hopping in the sack after 2 dinners and a movie, we've also gone to a LOT of trouble to look and feel sexy and desirable -- and we're not mind readers, and we want to know that you're feelin' it.

And if you're not, I'm pretty sure that makes us... Just... Friends.

As Kat indicated below, the relationship has to be moving forward in ALL directions -- firing on all cylinders, as I like to say -- in order to remain balanced. Some people kiss on the first date. Some people don't. Shrug. I think that's fine either way -- but a warm goodnight hug, after you've walked me to my car and opened the door, goes a really long way. A kiss on the cheek is never a bad idea. Or a hand on my lower back. SOMETHING to let me know that you want to touch me. Date #2 is a great time for some hand holding, maybe a kiss goodnight. And if on Date #3 I'm at your house MAKING YOU DINNER and then curling up to watch some TV after hours of intense conversation / bonding? Maybe I'm an idiot, but isn't that code for, "Let's make out and see if we have physical chemistry?"

Because, uh, I decoded that one in about 9th grade and haven't been wrong since.

All of this, O & O F'd****, hopefully leads up to THE BIG O -- and no, I'm not talking about the Obsolescence of Old fashioned values -- I'm talking about the kind of smokin' connection and ultimate sexual compatability that happens when a woman feels valued, appreciated, and understood on ALL levels-- physical, emotional, intellectual.

We're a little more complicated than you, yaknow, and it takes a little more to make us tick.

When you ignore us sexually, that's a huge part of the equation. Everytime you shut a woman out, you might as well be making kindling out of that three-legged stool. Little by little, the whole structure falls apart.

SO! My advice to you? Grow a pair! Haha! That's SO mean,***** and I'm terribly sorry about that,****** but seriously. You're a grown man. Stop whining. Stop putting a woman off. Make her feel like a desirable, sexy, woman -- she's not just your buddy, she's your DATE. Don't compromise your values, morals, or change WHO you are. But up your game a bit -- I guarantee it'll get you to the playoffs.

Sugar and spice,
~Jess


*Um, no -- that doesn't stand for Old Fashioned & Obsolete
**Excuse me, Personal and Family Life Sciences, PFLS for short (Prounounced, "Piffles." Gag me).
***Insert obvious joke here about your third leg, ahem, made of wood
****Nope, "F'd" doesn't stand for what you think it does
*****Whoa, did Kat and I switch places here? I thought I was the nice one!
******No I'm not, actually

Nice Guys Finish Last...Or Never Start At All

Dear Chix:

Lately, there's been a recurring theme among the girls I've dated, and that is that a lack of propulsion in the physical relationship has repeatedly sunk my boat. I liked these girls, but I guess there is one thing that I just don't get. People expect sex on the third date. I enjoy sex just as much as the next person but by the third date I hardly even know that person. I just don't grasp what the rush is. I would much rather take my time getting to know someone before I decide if I want to sleep with them and thus make the sex more meaningful. I guess I am old fashioned because I see sex as more that just sex. Am I wrong for thinking that way? Is there no one else out there who thinks like me? Am I obsolete? I am naive in this whole dating rules/expectations game and I am disappointed that the physical aspect of a relationship trumps all else and becomes a deal breaker. I am seeking advice...

******************************************************************************
Okay, Nice Guy, before I go all sex therapist on your ass, I want to say thanks for giving me something to think about today other than Inaugural Fashions and The Biggest Loser. This has been a long week and giving you some MUCH NEEDED perspective on your "problems" is just what I need today.

So, I just read this and thought to myself "If I were sitting across the table from this guy and he just told me this story, I would set down my beer, purse my lips, furrow my brow and say 'Have you made it to first base yet?'" So, Nice Guy, let's take a step back from "Sex on the 3rd Date" expectations and ask the real question...Have you put your tongue in her mouth/ear/cleavage/pink parts by the 3rd date?

Because if you haven't - if you're using "sex" as a metaphor for any sort of physical activity here, then we have one issue. If you're very consistently getting to first base, then onto hitting doubles, even eeking out a triple here and there - and these girls are still jumping ship due to lack of action - then we have a different issue.

Although I don't know what the answer is here...I like to give most of my female counterparts a fair shake. So that said, I don't think that girls bail on guys who don't want to have sex right away. I think they bail on guys who don't want to have sex (or make out or kiss or anything) at all. So, I'll proceed with the belief that the lack of sex is also a lack of heavy petting and oral olympics. K? K. Cool.

So nice guy, my advice to you is this - stick to your morals! Wait to have sex until you're in a relationship with someone you like/love/adore. BUT - in the course of dating, you MUST also show the girl that you're attracted to her. That you're going to be progressing the relationship both emotionally AND physically. Some people don't like to kiss on the first date, which is perfectly fine. But you have to kiss on the second date. A third date needs to progress - not to sex - but how about some passionate kissing and maybe a tit grab? Don't worry, you're not objectifying us!! We like it! We feel attractive and desired!!!! And do you know what happens when we don't feel desired and attractive? We jump ship. Sex or no sex on the 3rd date.

But we're all big kids here - so if you're thinking about waiting until you're married or some other such nonsense (sorry God) then you owe it to someone to tell them that upfront. Because I can tell you, that would be a deal breaker for me.

Why? Well, its a well known fact that I'm a ridiculous hornball. But also, its been my experience that guys that want to wait usually have some "issue". See: premature load-blowing, teeny weinies, STDs, etc (Let the onslaught begin)

And so Nice Guy, there you go. If you're King Cunnilingulus on Date 3 and Lady Lovely still bolts for the door due to no hot beef injection - you're dating the wrong girls and stop picking up chicks on AFF.com.

Warm regards and bed sheets,
-kat

Sparkless

Carrie Bradshaw calls it "Sza Sza Szu," an expression that makes me physically cringe when I hear it. Some people call it "butterflies in the stomach," and others just call it attraction. I call it a "spark," and once you've experienced it with a potential partner, it's virtually impossible to settle for anything less.

That said, sometimes those relationships that start out hot and heavy don't have any staying power -- the slow burn is the one that, in true tortoise-and-hare fashion, wins the race.

I don't know all the answers, but I do know this --

Guys, yeah, we want a nice guy. But when we say "nice guy," we don't mean one that takes 4 dates to kiss us on the cheek, and doesn't have the cajones to make the bold move. We want men of integrity and kindness -- who still know how to pick up the CHECK, and pick up the CHICK.

In other words, don't be an ass, but at the same time, don't confuse "nice guy" with "I won't touch your boobs until the 6th date, and only after you've given me verbal permission."

"Nice guy" is a positive thing.

"Wus" is not.

I've been in the situation a dozen or more times when I've WANTED to like somebody so much -- the anxiety of the relationship isn't even found in whether or not he likes me or whether or not he'll call, but why we're not smokin' physically... the symptoms of which are: not excited to go out. Not excited to see his name on my caller ID. Not excited that the relationship seems to be continuing or that he seems to be interested. Yet I've tried to be excited; tried to stay interested. When I finally admit it isn't working, more often than not, it's because try as I might, my "good on paper" guy was, in real life, as pale and milquetoast as a sheet of 8 X 10 matte ivory finish.

Yet over and over again, I've "tried to feel a spark." Tried to convince myself there was something there, even though there wasn't.

I've also been on the other end -- where the guy feels every little wonderful thing for me in the world... except the spark. I didn't really understand what that meant, until I dated a few sparkless guys. And once again, these were men that were wonderful guys... we just didn't have that intangible, magical chemistry.

On a first date with my current flame, he said to me, "Yeah, you women... you get all wrapped up in that spark. Personally, I think that's overrated."

A month later, he said "Actually, I totally get that now -- I'd never felt it before, until I found it with you."

"See," I smiled at him, "I told you it's not overrated."

The problem, of course, rears it's ugly head when you've never felt it before -- if you only have past assclowns and crazies to compare your current relationship to, EVERYTHING feels like an improvment. If you don't know "the spark," how long to you tough it out before packing it in?

I'm of the belief that you have to be connecting on all levels (physically, emotionally / mentally, intellectually), in order to feel that spark -- I think of it as a three-legged stool, and if any of those legs is short, broken, or otherwise stumpy, the entire stool is adversely affected, and the structure isn't stable -- similarly, if you have amazing conversations, and you're intellectual equals, but can't seem to get things lifted off in the physical department, you're just friends.

Sorry, but that's how it works.

You're. Just. Friends.

Sometimes, you need that the physical element in order to grow the other two -- if you know right away that you spark physically, it makes things more interesting and exciting -- it's the draw that brings you back for more, over and over again. It's the thing you can come back to, even when the going gets tough or the path seems unnavigatable. Getting to know each other physically is FUN -- say nothing of it being just as important, in terms of lasting love, as the intellectual / emotional connection. And each of the three support, enhance, and reinforce each other.

When you don't spark, you're sparkless -- not to be confused with sparkles -- and it shouldn't take more than a couple of dates to figure that out. Try as we might to "make things work," it's a lie you shouldn't want to tell....

...because trust me when I say -- there's SO much better out there. There's somebody out there who will spark for you just as much as you spark for them, and when you connect those two fuses, the outcome is pretty amazing. Rubbing two sticks together, trying to make a spark, only clouds your brain and gets in the way of allowing the RIGHT spark to find it's way to you.

Sugar and spice,

~jess

The Dreaded Friendzone

Over drinks with a girlfriend the other night, the topic of The Unrelationship came up -- she'd recently ended a "something" with a "someone," but was laughingly trying to explain it to me:

"...At first I was apprehensive, even though he's totally hot. Once I got together with him, it was hot and heavy right from the get go... the physical was like nothing I've ever experienced, but I got sort of swept away in it (see: "sex haze" for details). Then I found out that he was on match.com - at the very least, looking at other women, but maybe dating them too. So I put the freeze on sex.

From then on, we kept seeing each other, but nothing physical. I assumed we were sliding into friendship-land, but every time I'd bring it up and ask "do you just want to be friends? Are we just friends?" he'd protest... "No, we're not just friends!"

But we weren't having sex. And then... then we weren't even KISSING anymore."

Finally, my friend ended her UNrelationship - much to the dismay of her UNboyfriend. They said they'd have a friendship, but haven't seen or spoken to each other since.

Let me ask you, dear reader, where is the line between friend and boyfriend? Personally, as the wise Kat once said to me, I like to let a guy's sex drive move a relationship forward -- if it ain't there, neither is the potential. And if a guy is only interested in nailing me -- without kissing me -- I think that sums it up pretty well.

As another friend of mine quips, "I've been FWAK'ed -- fucked without a kiss."

But if this is the case, why is the guy so hesitant to say "we're just friends"? Is it because being pushed into "The Friendzone," removes all possibilities for future sex? Is it because he's not yet sure how he feels about this woman? Is he trying to let HER steer the course? Is he just so wrapped up in NOT having his manhood insulted by putting in The Friendzone that he's in denial?

I just don't get it.

Usually I can put on the man pants and see things from a different perspective -- but in this case, I"m truly baffled. If there's no love, then why not just be pals?

And once you've been put in that Dreaded Friendzone, is there ever a way out? Do two people go from lovers to friends and back to lovers? Or is the Friendzone the death knell of sex / intimacy?

Thoughts?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And while we're on this topic of platonic relations between men and women, I"ll ask the age old favorite:

Is it possible for men and women to truly be "just friends," or does sex always get in the way?

And what about the jealous boyfriend / girlfriend who can't handle it when his/her signifant other goes out with a "just friend" of the opposite sex?

Protective, or posessive?
Concerned, or control freak?
Justified, or jackass?

I have my own thoughts on this, but I'm interested in yours.

Sugar and spice,
~jess

Controversy, Discuss

I was recently given the advice that the best relationships are those where the man loves the woman just a little bit more.

Discuss.

Counterpoint: Don't Tell Me You Love Me -- Show Me.

I know that when we all think of The Grand Gesture, we're met with various Hollywood images that have been imprinted in our brains over the years -- since adolescence, we've thought about Lloyd Dobler holding up the In Your Eyes boombox; Richard Gere in his white limo, posing as the White Knight that "rescues" Julia Roberts*, or most recently, Mr. Big hopping a flight to Paris to rescue Carrie from a life with that Russian assclown artist.

It typically goes like this:

Step 1: Introduce male and female leads

Step 2: Outline problem that needs solving (usually, singledom coupled with a sad state of affairs, be it hookerdom, nerddom, or a sub-par relationship)
Step 3: "Meet Cute"
Step 4: Fallout
Step 5: The Grand Gesture
Step 6: Happily Ever After

The Grand Gesture has been around for AGES -- dating all the way back to Shakespeare, or some would argue the crucifixion**. A quick consult to my Handbook of Literature talks about The Grand Style, "a concept traceable back as far as classical antiquity . . . involving a host of lofty elements: nobility of character, sublimity of conception, dignified simplicity or severity of utterance, and grandeur of scope***."

My oh my... how this concept has changed over the years! Because these days? Rarely is it about "nobility of character" or "sublimity of conception," but more like this:

"WOW -- I just woke up from whatever dreamworld I was living in and realized that (Vivian Ward, Diane Court, Carrie Bradshaw) is pretty frickin' awesome -- and PROBABLY the best thing that will ever happen to me. I also realized that when I (called her a hooker in public, ditched her to marry a stick figure with no soul after jerking her around for four years), I was a MAJOR douchebag, yet I don't have the balls to simply admit I was wrong and TALK about it, so I think I'll (show up in a limo, get out the boombox****, fly to Paris), and knock her socks off and win her back! BRILLIANT."

Guys, here's the deal - if you don't act like an ass, The Grand Gesture isn't necessary. Sure, like any girl, I like flowers and romance and the little things you do to make me know I'm special to you; the things that set me apart from A Girl Friend as opposed to a girlfriend. I love the picnic in the park with wine and the iPod, not because it's SOOOOO ROMANTIC, but because it tells me that you took the time to think of something special, albeit simple, where we're spending time alone, talking, with no distractions. I don't need you to make it grand with a string quartet and and catered food... that's not what hooks most women. Similarly, I don't need a dozen roses on Valentine's Day to make up for the 20 times you've fallen short in our relationship -- nothing makes up for the idea of being there, patiently and consistently, even when it's not convenient. As somebody very wise once told me, "When both people in a relationship put the other person first, everybody's needs get met." To that end -- it's not the grand gestures or the endless "I love you's" that make me sure of my place in your heart (and secures yours in mine), but the simple act of BEING there, and being there in the right way, time and time again.

I'd much rather you hold my hair when I've got the flu, bring me coffee at midnight when I've been working since dawn with no end in sight, and follow with a $4 bouquet of flowers from Super America than some huge, overblown, cliche act.

We don't need diamonds*****, we need dependability.

But most women (ahem, yes, myself included) have fallen sucker to The Grand Gesture, assuming that (he bought me a dog, he flew me to Italy, he punched out my ex-boyfriend) equates love. And while it certainly indicates a CERTAIN level of commitment on a man's part, I think it's more like a Get Out of Jail Free card for the 1,000,000 times that man has been lazy in the relationship.

Of course, when we turn the tables on The Grand Gesture, rarely does it work this well: men see a female grand gesture as slightly crazy. Women, I encourage you not to do this. When a guy is done, he's DONE... and no amount of begging, pleading, or grandiosity will change his mind. What WILL change his mind? If anything, it's time alone in his own head (and bed), after which it dawns on him, "oh... I goofed." And chances are, at that point, you'll be on the recieving end of a Grand Gesture of his. But rarely does a woman show up on her trusty steed (write 18 pages letters******, hire a minstrel to play at a romantic dinner in the park, throw rocks at his window in the middle of the night), and whisk the man away to live happily ever after. Noooo... usually that stuff ends up with a restraining order and, well, being written about on this blog. What we women might think of as Grand and Romantic is usually just enterpreted as "psycho," and happy hour mockery with the guys ensues.

Double-standard? You betcha. TRUE? Would I lie to you?

But like Kat said -- it's not Hollywood. There are very few "Meet Cute" scenarios these days, unless you count Match.com and 8 Minute Dating as supercute ways to meet a mate. Similarly, we're not in Fair Verona and you are not the Romeo to my Juliet*******

This brings me back to Kat's discussion of When Harry Met Sally. Did Harry NEED the grand gesture? No. He didn't. Because for decades, through thick and thin, he showed Sally that he was her guy. He did the time; he showed up for her tears and her cramps. He loved her, unconditionally, through sweatpants and ponytails, even though the definition of that love changed over time. And the main theme of the movie, that I love so much?

"When you meet the person you want to spend the rest of your life with, you want the rest of your life to start right away."

Sugar and spice,
~Jess


*I'm not sure how Vivian Ward got this gig -- just happens to be a hooker on Wilshire that gets picked up by a multi-millionare, and then he's such an assclown that SHE walks? And HE begs HER to come back? Clearly I'm in the wrong line of work. ALTHOUGH, you can only hear that Richard Gere / gerbil story so many times before you start wondering if it's true...
**If anybody out there has any stories about crazy chicks dying on a cross to profess their unrequired and unconditional love, I want it. NOW.
***Something tells me that back in classic times, dude was working a little harder at grandiosity than just blaring music below the fair maiden's window, thus waking up the entire neighborhood (Say nothing of her dad. Mine would be pissed. You couldn't even CALL after 10).
****I just realized that Lloyd Dobler is possibly the one exception to this "rule," because in Say Anything, it's Diane that acts like kind of an assclown and dumps HIM, giving him a PEN as a parting gift. WTG, Diana.
*****That said, a well timed 1 carat princess cut solitaire in white gold is always a nice touch. When the timing is right, of course.
******I mean really -- didn't we all learn from Ross and Rachael on Friends that the 18-pager is NEVER a good idea?
*******If you want to get technical, Romeo and Juliet were NOT, actually, a depiction of true love -- even though they downed poison and defied their families wishes. In the beginning of the play, Romeo is in love with another women -- he's fickle -- and the darkest interpretations of this work define it as a COMEDY. How's THAT for depressing?

Unrealistic Expectations of Love

Please note that due to a complete and utter lack of effort on your part, dear readers, I've resorted to recycling posts from my other blog that I have with my oh-so-brilliant friends. One posted a link to a story that claims that people who watch Romantic Comedies in turn have unrealistic expectations of relationships and lack communication skills...We then opened season on the hypothesis and this was my response:

Okay, so first off, I'll admit I've likely seen EVERY romantic comedy that has hit mainstream audiences in the past 10 years. I'm not proud of it, but in a way, I may be a pathetic expert on this topic.

Guess what? I'm so bad that I not only suffered through an entire novel (I grate my teeth to even call it that) comprised of 700 some pages of torturous writing - so committed was I to finish that book that I put myself through physical pain. Then do you know what I did? I watched the fucking movie in hopes that it would redeem the story and I would FOR ONCE be able to spew forth the words: The movie was better than the book!

To my, and Hilary Swank's, disgrace - I did not speak those seven words. I sighed and chalked up 2 more hours of my life wasted on "PS I Love You". I kid you not, even Denny from Grey's Anatomy couldn't save this horrific flick.

But that sad experience aside, I love me some chick flick. Do I especially love them during break ups? Hell yes! Do I own many on DVD and rewatch Hitch and French Kiss on a regular basis? You bet! But in my esteemed opinion, there really is one main Romantic Comedy by which to benchmark all others. This film is the be-all, end-all of Rom-Coms, if you will. And I set forth the example of "When Harry Met Sally".

This movie and all others within the genre follow the same general composition and the inevitable and CONSTANT ending - The Grand Gesture.

What is with that? Why can a movie NOT end with The Grand Gesture? In my life this is the only thing that I think may have influenced my relationships. I mean, wasn't every relationship supposed to have its ups and downs always resolved by one member of the relationship providing The Grand Gesture and solving EVERYTHING?

Riiiiight....

No, I totally thought so! I swear! I always thought that after every scuffle, every fight, one of the many exes would race through the barren woods on a snowy winter day, screaming my name, risking twig and limb, only to come back to me standing on the side of a cliff with my hair blowing in the wind, tears steaming down my face and he would arrive, bloodied and breathless and proclaim his undying love. He would tell me everything would be all right, that as long as we had love, we could endure anything together.

Fuck me. Right. But really, I even picked fights in hopes of the grand gesture. God my 20s were awesome!

That said, what about parental influence? Did this study even look at what sorts of homes these people were raised in? In a society where more homes than ever before are headed up by a single parent, isn't it only natural that children would lack an understanding about communication between life partners? That they would lean on movies about relationships in order to gain better understanding about them? I think more than anything else, any delusions or visions I had about the way things "were supposed to be" in my relationships came from my parents and they way they interacted with each other. And that one time my dad raced through the forest to my mom standing on the white cliffs of Dover. Or something.

And I think that people in their 20's - romantic comedy viewers or not - spend much of their time trying to learn how to navigate relationships. What to say, what not to say, how to say it, when to say it, and we ALL crash and burn at some points. And this isn't just with significant others, it happens at work, with friends, with family. Your 20s are a huge time when you learn how best to work your way through relationships of all sorts as you're no longer protected by the umbrella of school or friends or parents. Its you, 20-something, versus the world.

Which I suppose ropes back in someways to the lessons we've brought forth to you, friends thus far:

Date people your own age - or date cougars as they're pretty cool too.

Don't date the crazy, don't be the crazy - and if you're measuring your relationship against that of Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks in Sleepless in Seattle - We may have a problem.