by Taylor Marsh
Now I’m thinking about the 2009 smash hit movie He’s Just Not That Into You. Based on the book by comedian Greg Behrendt, who also was involved as a script consultant on the TV series Sex and the City, the material was like a slap upside the head for women. Imagine the concept that if a guy’s into you, he’ll call, and if he isn’t, it’s likely not going to matter what rules you follow. It’s not anything you did, it’s something that just didn’t click when you met. It might even be about him. Imagine that.
Chances are, when Ms. Fein met her dreamboat Lance, who became her husband, he was simply into her, the chemistry was right and it worked. There is nothing that can keep a guy away from you if it’s right. He’ll beat a path to your door no matter what, if he feels it.
What this should mean to every woman looking for a relationship is monumental, regardless of your age.
Most women today are perfectly capable of making their own rules for their own life without the help of strangers who are concocting arbitrary guidelines, complete with timetables, out of thin air. If you’re one of those girls who’s unsure about what to do in the new-media era, first take a moment to think about all of this for a second.
Very few writers have been online as long as I have. Even fewer were snooping around in the dating game at the moment personals and online dating went viral. So, let me take you through this.
What’s the point of social media, Facebook, texting, Instagram or, taking it even further, sexting? Immediate intimacy, an oxymoron if ever there was one.
That didn’t keep iPhone from developing Tinder in February 2013. As featured on NBC’s Today, Tinder is an iPhone app that, by April 2013, had led to Tinderitis, which Huffington Post described as “the sensation of having a sore thumb from swiping to approve or reject the faces of people offered up as potential date material.” One sophomore at Cornell University reviewed it this way: “People don’t think of [Tinder] as online dating; they think of it as a game.”
The excitement value is clear, but anything that happens this quickly and spikes your attention and emotional engagement can easily bring you down just as fast.
In February 2013, new research by psychologists at the University of Kansas revealed through three different studies that being transparent on Facebook about your relationship can cause you big romantic problems. Here’s a clue: Just because there are social media trends and everyone’s doing it, doesn’t mean it’s a good idea or will get you what you want. Some things never change, starting with the fact that if you want intimacy between you and a guy, keep personal details to yourself, and then, eventually, share them solely between the two of you.
From the article on the study, which was posted at News.Ku.edu just before Valentine’s Day in 2013: “KU researchers created two mock Facebook walls, one of which featured a circumspect user — who briefly mentioned sports and weather and linked to items of interest on the Internet — the other of which had a user who let it all hang out, bemoaning parents, classes, weight problems and posting a plethora of party pictures. ‘We asked participants to imagine that these were the Facebook walls of their romantic partner,’ Lee said. ‘We found that people who were given the high-disclosure wall felt less intimacy with the user than people who were given the low-disclosure wall.’ The researchers predicted their results in advance, based on previous studies of Facebook and real-world romance, including one that found Facebook was mentioned in a third of divorce filings in the United Kingdom.”
People twenty-five and under have figured this out, as they begin to assess their own privacy, including that Facebook has now become the primary place where parents and “grey-haired ones” troll. In November 2013, Facebook admitted they’d seen a “decrease in daily users, specifically among teens,” which was the lead in to an article in the Guardian by Parmy Olson, a technology writer for Forbes magazine and the author of We Are Anonymous. Ms. Olson reported a “gradual exodus” away from Facebook and that “the fun stuff is happening elsewhere. On their mobiles.” Messenger apps like WhatsApp, WeChat and KakaoTalk allow people to have more privacy, because the groups consist of “real-life friends,” people who already have each other’s mobile numbers. According to Olson, “about 90% of the population of Brazil uses messaging apps, three-quarters of Russians, and half of Britons, according to mobile consultancy Tyntec. WhatsApp alone is on more than 95% of all smartphones in Spain.”
According to MobileYouth, cited by Olson, 61% of teens sleep with their mobiles. The messenger app shift toward more privacy, less Facebook, hints that the online fetish for public oversharing with strangers is less interesting to younger generations. Real connections are slowly encroaching on virtual intimacy, with 78% of teens and younger generations preferring “mobile messengers to plan a meet-up with friends,” according to Olson, citing MobileYouth. Her Guardian report also reveals why there is a move away from Facebook. Apps aren’t just apps anymore when it comes to mobile messaging; they’re social networks, the holy grail of modern personal connection, which Facebook began.
Women have never had greater ability to control the whole meeting and dating cycle, but are choosing to relinquish much of it. This is because of how men have reacted to the ease of social media, with girls opting to following the boys’ lead. I’ll cover this as we go along, but what women really need to know is that technology hasn’t changed the basic human instincts and predilections of men. So, don’t be seduced by ease of communication and group outings, because men will lap up easy connection as long as women play that game and allow them to get away with it.
Of course, if you like group dates instead of intimate, one-on-one dates, go for it, but just remember you made the choice to embrace a “post-dating” philosophy. Many men will appreciate it, because it makes things easier for them.
Technology is terrific. I’ve been using it since it took off. However, Facebook and texting are there to make communication between people easier and quicker. Dating isn’t about ease, and relationships don’t develop quickly. Attraction can be instant, but it doesn’t make a relationship.
If you’ve just met someone, you’re not even friends yet, so quick virtual banter is something that isn’t going to facilitate anything but setting up a false sense of familiarity. To become friends you have to establish in-person communications over a shared interest, cocktails or coffee. An online relationship alone is for people who want cheap, immediate thrills, which are great, but you need to make sure this is what you want, and all you want. If it’s a long-term relationship you’re setting up, your entire online persona and footprint must be different.
In the February 2013 issue of Psychology Today, the column “Love on the Internet,” by Hara Estroff Marano, made a very important point that has been the truth about Internet connections since even before Facebook and other social media took off. If you’ve jumped into an online relationship, understand that “very little personal investment is required to initiate or respond” to someone who catches your eye online, Marano wrote.
The person you are instantly put into contact with may not have any intention of following through beyond what’s convenient, so it comes down to how much discipline you have in the moment. Because if you let yourself get sucked in before you’ve established that you both are willing to put in equal amounts of energy toward what it is you both want, you’re likely headed onto a one-way road to frustration and disappointment, and a colossal waste of time.
Dating is about setting up a foundation of communication to see if you like each other and are compatible. Immediate intimacy is a booty call, which can just as easily be virtual, too. A relationship is something that is meant to develop over time as you get to know someone. Facebook, texting and other social media don’t foster this, and waiting thirty minutes before returning a man’s text won’t help.
If you’re out of high school or college, or over that age, you shouldn’t be texting anyone but friends, unless for example you have to let a person you’re dating know you have to work late an
d will not make a date on time. Texting should be used for basic information, not conversation, at least not until things are established. It is casual communication between people who have already established a relationship. Unless you have, don’t do it. Texting is also an easy rush for guys that allows them to juggle girls without really investing anything of value. Once you open that gate, it’s impossible to set boundaries that work in your favor. Texting creates a fake intimacy between people where shortcuts and quick banter rule. It also drains anticipation and energy away, while making longer phone conversations moot.
Facebook presents a real dilemma today for daters. I’ve never understood why women put so much personal information about themselves on Facebook. You’ve got to have some great shots of yourself, as well as your interests, but divulging too much publicly is a mistake. In some instances it can also be dangerous.
Online discipline requires so much more energy than before virtual matchmaking existed. It starts with stopping yourself from thinking an immediate text or tweet from a guy means anything. It also involves keeping your eyes off his Facebook page and including some mystery on your own page. Not designing it as if it’s a promo for what you offer as a potential partner, and not saying everything that’s on your mind on a public web page. Refusing to be confused by the temptations of text and an instant relationship that is all manufactured in your head takes personal discipline. Indulging yourself can bring easy, quick satisfaction, but will eventually deliver frustration if he doesn’t virtually react every day as quickly as he did the day before.
Romantic predators aren’t just physical and emotional, they’re also quick-fix, virtual-love junkies who get bored quickly and move on to the next thrill just as fast. One day’s rapid-fire, fun and romantic banter can lead to quick burnout and the next virtual conquest hunt for him. This can all turn into a roller coaster ride that’s fun and fleeting but never gets you much for your time and energy, if you’re not methodically disciplined. Cheap thrills are great, if that’s what you want. Just make sure it is.
As the article in Psychology Today warns, if things start off fast, but begin “downtrending” just as quickly, you’ve got yourself what I call a quick-thrill, virtual Casanova.
Also remember that the compressed time in the online dating world results in distorted expectations. It doesn’t allow for life lived in real time, so the obsessed clock-watcher can interrupt what may be developing by making demands on someone to answer in a specific timeframe, when their prior obligations, job commitments and basic living don’t always allow it. Virtual demands, before an in-person connection has been firmly established, are a budding-relationship killer.
Dating and setting up a relationship require a commitment of time. Both are natural components needed until you know someone, especially if you’re intending to manifest a romantic connection. I assume women aren’t giving just anyone their phone number, so why would you invite someone to text you when you don’t really know him? If you’re lost or late, or are dispensing basic information, like the location of the restaurant where you’re meeting, perhaps so he can make reservations, that’s one thing.
Here’s another idea: Trust yourself, and listen to that little voice you sometimes hear speaking out when you least expect it. That’s the sound of your heart, which will break through if you let it. It’s different from the tape in your head, because that never-ending lecture running in a constant loop composed of other people’s words is a lot like the rules that come from “experts.” It keeps you from hearing and then listening to when your heart speaks out, which can only surface if there’s enough space for it to squeeze through amid the cacophony of advice or rules you’re getting from the outside. If you can’t hear that voice inside yourself, maybe the last thing you need is a relationship, and the first thing you might want to consider is finding out what it sounds like, so you can hear what it’s saying to you, because it’s never wrong, even if you don’t want to listen.
If you’re not sure about texting, rules aren’t the answer. Maybe you just shouldn’t be doing it, and if he doesn’t think that’s cool, tough. Make sure you know who you are first. What you want comes next, before you start listening to someone else’s rules about how to get it, especially when they don’t know or you haven’t decided what it is you want.
Not everyone wants the same things either.
This brings me back to the article I quoted in the New York Post at the top of this chapter about college students turning to sugar daddies for financial support. It got my attention because I started the first alternative personal ad section in the LA Weekly back in the ’90s.
Relationships aren’t easy, but one basic feature is sexual compatibility. It may seem strange to consider that in the mid-’90s the premier newsweekly out of Los Angeles didn’t have an alternative personal ad section. The LA Weekly had a very successful personal ad section that was going gangbusters before I arrived, but there are a lot of people looking for something else beyond traditional dating, love and marriage. This aspect of dating and love was part of my sexual education that took me way beyond my strait-laced, beauty queen roots.
The alternative personal ad game was a lot trickier for a mainstream newsweekly. The paper that lived off of advertising did huge business with Hollywood and had mainstream corporations spending significant money to place advertising, the paper’s bread and butter. One of the big selling points to convincing the publisher that alternative personals was worth a try was that I created code words to use in the alternative personals. The publisher at the time was leery about the whole operation, so it was the only way to make it fly.
Knowing Los Angeles as I did, I knew that “special arrangement” ads would definitely get women’s attention, but also bring in the high-caliber businessmen, some who travel to Los Angeles, as well as Hollywood types, which were a natural.
The website the Post article focused on was called SeekingArrangements.com. The article reported that three hundred NYU co-eds had joined the site in 2012 seeking a “mutually beneficial” relationship with “rich older gentlemen.” This was reportedly a 154% jump over 2011. Hundreds more co-eds from Syracuse, Columbia and Cornell had also joined up to try the special-arrangement path to pay for college tuition, someone from SeekingArrangement.com told the New York Post:
“Alex Cranshaw, 22, who graduated from NYU last year, said three of his female classmates had sugar daddies — including a woman whose benefactor financed a whole semester in Madrid. ‘He funded her tuition, paid for her housing, gave her spending money and paid for her airfare,’ Cranshaw said.”
Jennifer Gwynn, a spokesperson for SeekingArrangements.com, told the Post that the average “sugar baby,” as she called the co-eds, receives approximately $3,000 in allowances and gifts per month from her benefactor.
This is hardly a new thing. Back in the 1990s, women in Los Angeles wanted fun and games, too, and wanted to financially benefit from it as well. “Benefactor” is one of the code words for “sugar daddy,” which is a bit dated and ignores that it can include younger men. The women I worked with as Relationship Consultant had many choices, and some of them picked an “arrangement,” because it suited their lifestyle and was exactly what they wanted.
Clearly, a young woman from NYU or Cornell has more choices than a sugar daddy ad implies. Female college co-eds were choosing the relationships because they were easier than struggling with back-breaking student loans, in their estimation. Such an arrangement didn’t require much maintenance or demand emotional entanglements, though that can happen. Obviously, the women were attracted to the guys, though any feminist can argue against this choice. Ultimately it was up for each to decide. Was it good for the girl?
That has never been my role, to decide what’s right for someone else. It’s not up to me to judge another woman, even if I disagree. I reminded women to keep asking themselves what they want and to make sure they’re taking care of themselves while they’re getting it.
Any girl se
eking an arrangement, whether she’s twenty-two or forty-two, is looking for something quite different from someone seeking a romantic relationship in the hopes of manifesting marriage. Emotional ties in a special arrangement shouldn’t be deep, and the relationship will last until the day it doesn’t, so women beware.
I’d often get asked what the difference is between being in a special arrangement and being a hooker. The woman is accepting money to date a man she might not be attracted to if she wasn’t benefiting financially. A special arrangement is a sort of contract between two people who like each other but want the convenience and disposability of the arrangement, without the risk of seeking out an illegal relationship that involves money for sex. You seldom take a hooker to dinner, but a special arrangement can include travel, dinner and even mixing with friends. Judgment about the notion of special arrangements, as well as their morality, makes the real difference.
The alternative ads I created had a glossary that had to be followed. The usual terms for S&M, sadomasochism, became commanding and passive. Boy, did that piss people off! At least at first. It meant people who were used to the usual lifestyle lingo had to smooth off edges they preferred. It was the price of having alternative ads, I told them. I tried to get people placing ads to think of it like a word game. Bondage was turned into knotty adventures, as well as rope play. It was all so ridiculous, but I’d learned from many years of reading and researching the sex world that there was a whole other world out there beyond vanilla sex, and many people were enjoying themselves engaging in it.
This wasn’t my thing and might not be yours, but as long as people are consenting adults, why should anyone care?
Flashing on to Fifty Shades of Grey right now, the sexy trilogy series by E.L. James? It’s quite different, because of how the male character, Christian, became a dominant, but also because he was set “free.”