To Tell or Not to Tell?

One thing I LOVE about occasional dating is that it promotes ethical "testing the waters". Unlike testing the waters a la Billy.

Billy and I have been friends for three years and there's definitely been some sexual tension between us all that time. Well, one Friday the tension was too much, we made out and it was nice. So nice that I wasn't disappointed by my three years of high expectations for my chemistry with Billy.

But, even though it was nice, it was also kinda awkward. I mean, Billy called me the weekend after we kissed and I really didn't know how to treat him--as the buddy who helped me buy a car? as the pitcher on my rival softball team? as the guy friend I confided my dark dating disasters to? as this dude i kinda liked and just made out with? Clearly, Billy sensed (or shared) the awkward feelings and specifically brought up "us" the next time we spoke. He asked where I stood, what I was looking for from him. I was impressed by his directness and told him that I liked him and was interested in pursuing something relationship-esque with him.

"Well the reason I'm asking is because I'm kinda dating this other chick," he tells me. "Well, I guess you'll kinda have to figure out what you want then," I reply. It's no big deal if he's dating her, I explain to him, because "we've not really dating at all, yet." In all honesty, I was almost relieved that Billy was kinda dating this other chick because I was nervous that he wanted to move too fast with me.

Still nervous about Billy sprinting through our relationship that we had yet to begin, I called him the next day, reiterating that I liked him and wanted to get to know him better, but slowly. There is no reason why he can't have a couple dates with me and a couple dates with this other chick and let things happen as they may, I tell him.

Then Billy sucker-punches me. He says, "Well, I'm not sure she'd be cool with me going on dates with you while I'm sleeping with her." Then he spouts off something about respecting this commitment he has with her and I am silent. Silent because I don't know whether I should laugh at him or yell at him. Kinda dating someone is not the same as being in an exclusive relationship for six months with someone. It's not really even that similar, as far as dating similarities go. This is not something Billy should have easily confused and/or forgotten neither the other night when he made out with me nor the night he asked me how I felt!

"Yeah, but if YOU want to date me then I'd rather date YOU than HER," Billy "assures" me, "so I need you to let me know what you mean by 'take things slow.'" I ask myself if he really just said that to me and if he really does not comprehend how moronic he is being.


Maureen says Billy's just not that into me. I say thanks, Maureen.

But it's not about me feeling bad about Billy not being that into me. And it's not about making me feel better for him being such an ass. It's about the repeated behaviors that I find in dating that kinda shock me. How many of us have "started" new relationships before our current relationship has finished? How many of us are not proud of that fact? Or, how many of us don't think it's a big deal to test the waters in the sleazy way Billy did? How many of us hold on to our current partner that we'd rather NOT be with until something better comes along? How many of us are scared to be alone?

What's the bigger picture in dating? Is it really just being with someone? Just not being alone? Just having a warm body to lie next to (which, granted, IS pretty nice). Just tolerating someone who, as Brian puts it, "will laugh at my jokes" and "tolerate my shit".

Don't get me wrong--I appreciate and enjoy the simple pleasures in life, such as laughter and shit-tolerating. But I also know a bunch of people who laugh at my jokes and put up with my shit that I would never consider dating. I guess for me, I never want settling to be an option.

In that case, Billy never really had a chance anyway.

The F*@# Buddy : Part I

Why did we invent the fuck buddy?

Let me specify that I am not talking about the one-night stand nor the lover but the fuck buddy. And there is a difference. Because the one-night stand is only one night, everybody receives a bit of pleasure and is kinda on the same playing field. And with the lover, well there is implied intimacy (or love). It's when there is more than one night of screwing without intimacy that there becomes a fuck buddy, i.e. I'm only keeping your number saved in my phone insofar as you can provide me sexual pleasure.

I'm not gonna lie, I have fallen victim to the enticement of casual sex with a particular asshole (read RJ) in the past, and it hasn't been as great as I'd like it to be. Here's why:

1.) I want intimacy. Now that doesn't mean I am necessarily looking for exclusivity or long term (I have had more than one intimate one-night stand) but it definitely means I am not looking just to get laid. C'mon, I'm not 18 any more--I want someone who is looking to enjoy himself, who is confident, who doesn't have a issue sharing stuff with me.

2.) I fool myself. I think that I want casual sex--sounds perfect, right? And in theory, it is perfect: no strings attached, passionate loose-yourself-in-the-moment luv makin'. But it's never that simple for me because I only ever want to have sex with guys I am into. Which leads me to reason number three.

3.) I only have sex with guys I am in to. Duh, right? I mean, I am not going get in bed with some random dude with a great ass that I met at the bar and who bought me a drink. What I mean is, no matter how good he looks, if he ain't smart or confident I ain't inviting him in. So, if I only get with guys I like then clearly I am disappointed when there becomes a lack of intimacy.

I mean, the fuck buddy concept doesn't really work for me but there are people out there who believe it and use it.

Do they just have some innate disposition for having casual sex?
Are some of us just programmed to have relationships sans intimacy?

Casual Sex = Empowering???

NPR posted a relevant article Sex Without Intimacy dealing with casual relationships. The premise of the article is basically that the "dating" culture of yesterday's youth has transformed into the "hook-up" culture of today's young people, suggesting this phenomenon to be influenced by a variety of social factors, including the sexual revolution and more women seeking higher education.

Needless to say I find the evolution of dating an interesting topic, and Bailey's From the Front Porch to the Backseat sounds like a good read.

However, I was particularly struck by 25-year-old Welsh's comment that dating interferes with having a good time. It seems to me that Welsh misspoke. According to her, hook-ups are fun, while dating (and relationships) are not. Both, however, involve implied physical intimacy, or at least the opportunity for such. The real difference between hook-ups and dating seems to lie in the time commitment and the vulnerability. Maybe what Welsh really meant to say, and what more aptly describes dating amongst youth today, is a rejection (or at least a postponing) of emotional intimacy.

Human sexuality workshop leader Roffman agrees that emotional intimacy is what falls by the wayside in the hook-up culture. It is also one of the major dilemmas that Sex and the City character Amanda Jones presents in the TV series and movie:

Is casual sex empowering or enabling?
Is being a woman who seeks out casual sex a legitimate way to subvert a hegemonic cultural/gender dynamic that designates women as having a passive role in romance?
Can it be a legitimately subversive act if the end goal is still committed partnership?
And if the ultimate goal is indeed partnership, how can years (?) of hook-ups prepare us for being in committed relationships?

Twenty-five-year-old Wilkerson is in no way discouraged by a possibility of "unhealthy" behaviors in today's hook-up culture. She has faith and seems to think we'll be able to just somehow "figure it out".

I hope she's right.

Men vs. Employment: Which is Less Difficult to Find?

So I saw this traffic(?) sign in Buenos Aires in March and it got me thinking as to its possible meanings: Men with no pants and briefcases dance here? Men are happy to work here? Male street performers balance on one leg while swinging lunch boxes here?

As you can see in the next photo, there are actually men conversing below the sign.



Regardless of what they're talking about, the sign got me thinking about men and employment: in this economy, which is less difficult to find?

And upon casual reflection, and acknowledgment that looking for a job is a full-time job, I came to the conclusion that it is less difficult to find decent employment in Tucson than it is to find decent men.

Here's why:

Employers post available positions everywhere. There are multiple media ways to find out what jobs are out there, free of charge. Searching "jobs in Tucson" on the internet usually results in a number of non-shady hits about employment opportunities.

Googling "men in Tucson" might result in a different caliber of hits.

Additionally, men rarely announce their availability (to date, not to just screw). Decent men are not visibly out there announcing their "single and looking" status. That is, unless they pay to sign up for a dating service. Not that there's anything wrong with dating services.

Job postings let you scan the job description, qualifications, experience wanted, etc and essentially screen what jobs you apply for. Employers don't write one thing on their job listings and another in your contract. (Usually).

Not so with men. They offer no qualifications profile, no resume on the first date or encounter, sometimes they can't even gather their qualifications to be dating you, and often they exaggerate a little about their experience.

So unless Tucson adopts some traffic signal like the one I found in Buenos Aires and posts it in areas where decent, single men are lurking, I (sadly) venture to say that in Tucson employment is easier to find than a good date.

Smart People and Dating

Ufff. This article is a good read if your smart and not dating. Or if you want to laugh at smart people not dating.

Smart People.

Text Messaging

Text messaging can be like a big slap in the face. Let me explain.

Texting is great because it is instant written communication with people when other forms of communication are difficult or inconvenient. Because text messages are sent directly to cell phones, this instant communication is portable and extremely versatile because despite the immediate reception of texts, immediate response is not as socially expected as, say immediate responses during phone calls. Or it is?

I think it is precisely because text messaging is so instant and convenient that the more we use this method of communication, the more we receive instant responses, and the more we become conditioned to expect these immediate responses. Hence, when we don't receive the instant responses that we have become conditioned to, it is often perplexing and sometimes even frustrating.

I feel this tends to especially be the case with love interests. When a potential love interest does not respond to our text it is like a big slap in the face. It's like a deliberate dis; it's repeated rejection; because we all know how easy it is to respond to a text and how little time it actually takes. We also know that the majority of the time text messages are transmitted successfully, without mishap.

And yet, we rationalize and justify our love interest's ignorance of our text. "Maybe he didn't get my text." "Maybe he's is a meeting." "Maybe he's busy." Yeah right--this is the same guy who used to send us text messages during meetings and when he was super busy, writing things like, "I'm so busy but I just wanted to say hi", or "I'm in a mtg call you later." If this same guy begins to not respond on a regular basis then he most likely doesn't care.

Now granted, I understand a person's right and need to privacy, but that is a different argument. My premises are that text messaging conditions us to expect the immediate response, the immediate gratification, and hence be saying something more profound (than "I forgot") when we ignore texts, and hence be more disappointed when we don't get texted back.

For me, sometimes not responding to text messages is worse than not responding to emails of phone calls because it is just SO easy to text back. It is as if with his or her lack of response that person were saying, "Even though it would be über-easy for me to acknowledge you right now, I refuse to do it. That is how much I don't want to talk to you." Ouch.

Keeping In Contact With an Ex

How many of us do this? I really never had and always refuted the concept of me ever having a friendship with an ex. And then there was Brian.

Brian and I dated in college for a very short time, and only broke up because we were young (18) and stupid (mostly him). Even so, I had fallen hard and my heart was broken when we separated. And, being so young (although I am not so sure only the inexperienced participate in the following behavior), I put all my effort into making it appear as if I didn't care that we broke up or that he was dating other women. Since Brian and I hung out with the same friends it seemed like I was on stage with this horrendously painful and pointless non-caring-act almost constantly. And the worst part is I even tried to lie to myself about the whole relationship, tried to convince myself that I didn't care. However, the moment of truth came when I would see him with other women and my stomach would drop.

But that was only immediate post break-up. Things eventually got easier because 5 months later Brain moved to another town, and in another 6 months I had moved to another country (here's where the "sort of" part in our keeping in contact comes into play). This distance was kinda nice because I would not really think about him or have any contact with him except for occasionally running into him at parties over the summer (he was the fabulous kisser in my 'Art of Kissing' post).

Our reencounters, although few, were fantastic! They carried all the nostalgia of our previous romance and all the excitement of physically re-acquainting ourselves. Sigh.

However, I wonder if this romantic excitement about casual encounters changes when the encounter becomes less casual. For example, just recently when I visited Brian in Montreal, at first I was incredibly nervous! It seemed like all I had been thinking about for the past month and a half was making out with him and when he leaned over in the car to actually kiss me I kinda froze. What the hell?? The last time we saw each other we made out forever like high-schoolers at a party over the summer! Why was this occasion any different?

Maybe its not so bad to stay in contact with an ex if we play our cards right, i.e. if we aren't in contact that much. Just enough keeps up the nostalgia for the great memories created, while giving enough distance to still be casual and not to be nervous (is this even possible??). Maybe too much contact brings too much emotional intimacy, which tends to be more difficult to get over than the great sex. Needless to say, the question of how much contact is too much contact is always a tough one to answer, especially upon reflections of our motivation for the contact. Do we actually want to (is it even possible?) just be friends? Do we wait for Walt Disney and the stars to align and bring us together once again? Are we really prolonging our pain, fooling ourselves into thinking that it is a good idea to remain in contact with someone we want to be with but can't? Do we actually have potential for a successful relationship and are just waiting for the right moment (is there a right moment)?

And this is why me staying in contact with Brian is both fabulous (I love talking to him) and eventually detrimental (the day he stops calling me and starts dating someone on his side of the country).