The Atlantic article, Marry Him: The case for settling for Mr. Good Enough, was cross-referenced with my article, Chris Abraham As Quoted in The Atlantic, and then synthesized into the article, I’m Sufficiently Into You, which is especially cool because there are over 300 comments that dress my down like a rock star:

See, Chris has it right. If there’s only one person you’d want to be married to, then don’t marry anyone else.

If he’s telling the truth, that is. *ahem*probablynot*ahem*

Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 02-11-08 12:24 AM

“By the time she turns 37,” Chris said confidently, “she’ll come back. And I’ll bet she’ll marry me then. I know she wants to have kids.”

Is there anyone who doubts that the surgeon did exactly the right thing in not marrying him?

Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02-11-08 12:38 AM

This guy Chris must be a real whiz in his marketing job, what with all his keen insights into people. “I’ll just wait this one out, because doubtless this smart, ambitious, good looking woman will have to come crawling back for my baby making sperm.”

Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 02-11-08 1:19 AM

Well that’s marketing for you — he probably saw a study about high percentages of late-thirties childless women desperate to get married and start a family.

Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 02-11-08 1:23 AM

Chris sounds like a couple of guys I know, to the extent that many of them went through a must-find-a-wife stage and were far more desperate not to be “that guy” at the bar in his mid-thirties.

31 is just genius. “Never trust anyone over thirty” has turned into “Never trust anyone black/educated/white/rural/female/under 50 who voted for Obama.”

Chris’s story fills me with sadness more than anything else.

Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 02-11-08 6:36 AM

35: Yes, but they were worried about it. They were worried that women would wonder why they were 32 and not married. What was wrong with them? (Usually, nothing.) It’s just that we almost never hear about it from guys, but for guys that want to get married, in my experience, there’s just as much panicking.

Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 02-11-08 6:40 AM

It’s funny how all this ridiculous advice ignores the fact that there are also men who really, really, desperately want to get married and have children.

apart from the “Chris” bits, yes it does.

Posted by: dsquared | Link to this comment | 02-11-08 6:45 AM

I thought men’s greater reproductive flexibility would blunt that a bit.

Men still get old and ugly, even when their gonads keep working.

Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 02-11-08 6:48 AM

Sadly, some of my ideas about marriage and child rearing have gotten more traditional as I’ve gotten a bit older. My criteria have narrowed instead of expanding. In my case I think that’s just being realistic.

The kind of person I’d be willing to marry if we don’t plan on having kids is different from the standards I’d have if we do. I’d really need a lot of help to manage a household adequately. That means that I’d probably need a full-time nanny and someone to clean the house a couple of times a week. Given my temperament, I’m unlikely to be able to earn that kind of money myself, so I’d have to marry somebody pretty damn financially secure. Probably the ideal mate would be somebody working a 50 hour week with some independent source of income too.

Those are pretty narrow criteria, and it’s really quite likely that I’ll never find someone like that to have kids with, but that would be okay. Part of me would probably like to have kids, but I know that I shouldn’t absent a ton of help. If we aren’t going to have children, then I can be a lot more flexible.

Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 02-11-08 8:20 AM

So some of you want a guy with a trust fund, who will help with the kids, but is not a douchebag. Have you tried the park? He probably goes there in his spare time to ride unicorns.

Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 02-11-08 9:30 AM

If I wanted to desperately enough, I could start hanging around provate clubs and the like. I was somewhere recently where I was asked whether I needed to work or if I had an independent income.

Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 02-11-08 9:39 AM

So some of you want a guy with a trust fund

A bit of advice.

A high earner is better than a trust fundie.

Earnings get divided in divorce. In Virginia, a trust fund would not.

Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 02-11-08 9:40 AM

Have you tried the park? He probably goes there in his spare time to ride unicorns.

Chris Abraham “was found in the company of a brood of Unicorns and is believed to have been bred for his skills in magic.”

Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 02-11-08 10:02 AM

I couldn’t read the whole Gottlieb piece—my eyes started rolling uncontrollably when she dragged in Friends—but she seems awfully glib about the prospect of post-settling divorce. I know several people with little kids who are getting divorced or have recently done so, and Christ almighty what a nightmare. You think your life sucks because you yearn for spouse and family? Just you wait.

Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 02-11-08 10:16 AM

Since married is the new separated, separated is the new divorced, and divorced is the new single, that married guy is pretty much available anyway based on simple associative logic.

Oh, and now, divorced is the new widowed!

‘In the past, widowers used to get dates based on a “poor baby” sympathy a divorced man would never receive — until now.

Now, women are overlooking his part in it because then the divorce might make the divorced man undateable and that just wouldn’t do.

Blame the victim, the wife, for not understanding him the way you do.

So, divorced is the new widowed.’

I love this picture of Dr. Sadie Allison, Pleasure Doctor. Dr. Sadie is a lot of fun to ogle. Dr. Sadie will be beautiful, inspirational, educational, and live this Sunday on Talk Sex with Sue Johanson on the Oxygen at 11PM Eastern.

Here is the love note I received from the sexy, beautiful, brilliant, and charming Dr. Sadie just now:

SUBJECT: O Baby! See Your Doctor On TV
FROM: Dr. Sadie Allison, Tickle Kitty

Hi Again Tickle Fan!

How can you revive the heights of passion—without waking the baby?

Come find out this Sunday evening when your Pleasure Doctor appears LIVE on “Talk Sex with Sue Johanson” at 11E/10C/9P on the Oxygen Network

The topic? “The Baby Came—Now It’s YOUR Turn!??? Get my advice on sex after the baby and see the toys, techniques and turn-ons guaranteed to reenergize your lovelife.

Or come right now to Tickle Kitty and get those toys at 15% off with FREE lube and your own Tickle Kitty Magnet, too! At checkout, use coupon code: “AfterTheBaby15???

Set your TiVo now, or tune in Sunday, Dec. 3rd. See you there!

- Dr. Sadie Allison
Your Pleasure Doctor
http://www.ticklekitty.com

P.S. Forward this email now to all your friends with new babies so they can discover (and save!) too.

Corinne asked, “why go for someone younger that will be so co-dependent on you for everything when you can be with someone who is stable and independent?” And I responded…

In Why Men Date Younger Women in Their Own Words, Corinne commented:

“i think that older men or men in their 30′s forget that there are single women that have no baggage, that aren’t bitter, that have goals they want to attain, and still enjoy life and want no attachments. why go for someone younger that will be so co-dependent on you for everything when you can be with someone who is stable and independent. it just makes more sense. i wouldn’t want to be with someone younger just for that reason. I want common backgrounds, at least someone growing up from the same decade.”

And I responded:

“I think that when we’re looking for a wife, we men actually want someone who is dependent on us for everything, actuall, whereas when we’re looking for business partners and best friends, we look for someone “who is stable and independent.”

Don’t forget, that in the marriage ceremony, we are given you by your father. By the very nature of the ceremony of marriage, don’t we hope to get a woman who depends on us for everything?

Men want to be men, I think, and have the ability in a life where there are so few opportunities to be “the man,” I think men are looking to really have the opportunity to be the provider, to be the strong hunter, the cornerstone for the family.

Someone who is looked up to and admired as formidable and powerful by his little family.

I don’t know if stable and independent is something men ever consider as a selling point in a bride. Women should stop selling that as it is never anything that men are looking for in women, not when dating or when considering marriage.

We are afraid: we are afraid that we are non-essential, we’re afraid of being fungible, of being a sperm donor, of being the “wife” in the relationship. We are scared shit that you will end up rolling your eyes, regretting the decision, becoming bitter, nagging us, being disappointed, and not doing your job: providing the support it takes to make us the best men we can humanly become.

And of course we expect quid pro quo — we don’t expect this to just be one-way. We just want to make sure there is reciprocity from the get-go.

Otherwise, we feel like we’ll always be a disappointment to you and this feeling will either result in divorce, either out of your disappointment or because we push you away because we don’t feel the kind of sexual, emotional, personal, mental, and spiritual devostion — the adoration — we really in our heart of hearts, demand.

See, so that’s what is going on in our heads.”

Related articles

• “All the single ladies” Review of THAT article (thisismysoapbox.wordpress.com)
• Tips When Dating Small Russian Ladies (thediamondringreview.com)
• PHOTOS Ladies Do You Like Your Men Older Or Younger?!? (997now.radio.com)
• Women Make History (straightinfo.wordpress.com)
• Game Recognize Game-Why Older Men Date Younger Women (pastpresentfutureme.wordpress.com)
• Understatement of the Week: Nicholas Christenfeld (upi.com)
• Short Men Can Look Forward to Having Younger Wives (bigthink.com)
• Should Women Pay More For a Haircut Than Men? (bellasugar.com)
• Ellen Galinsky: What About the Men? (huffingtonpost.com)
• The Essence of Mens Anger (amangoinghisownway2112.wordpress.com)

The Post has a new article about Dating in D.C., “according to recent Census Bureau data, the District has the lowest ratio of single men to single women in the nation. Kelly Ann Collins, chronicler of the D.C. singles scene … offer[s] advice to women fighting the odds.”

You would think it would be easy for a man to find his perfect match in DC, right?. More’s not better. I am so happy to have hung up my date shoes, focusing instead on business.

Even after all of these years, even smart women like Amy Sutherland still think they can change a man. Women, you can’t change a man. Unless, of course, he wants to change (for you). Men and women are both wild things.

If you noticed from my article, Best Practices Guidelines for Approaching Women, I compared women to majestic, intelligent, wild things. In What Shamu Taught Me About a Happy Marriage, Amy Sutherland compares men to noble whales and dolphins — in captivity.

Are we men prisoners? Are we contained in some brackish blue-bottomed tank, encouraged to do shameful tricks for tub fulls of dead smelt, tongue and nose rubs?

After doing research on exotic animal trainers and exotic animal training schools, Amy Sutherland got it into her head that her husband Scott is a whale, trainable using the simple “approximations” method.

“The exotic animal known as Scott is a loner, but an alpha male. So hierarchy matters, but being in a group doesn’t so much. He has the balance of a gymnast, but moves slowly, especially when getting dressed. Skiing comes naturally, but being on time does not. He’s an omnivore, and what a trainer would call food-driven.”

Sorry, Amy, but Scott is no longer an alpha male. Apparently, you are. He is a trained seal. He is a fool. He is in captivity.

Poor Scott.

Thanks to David for sharing this article with me.

Diane’s article, Linda Hirshman needs a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down, reminded me of the article I read on the 9th, Is this really feminism? I believe that feminism is the empowerment of women in a patriarchal system with the goal of achieving a quality of choice at least equal to that of men.

A woman’s choices should include whatever she wants, including the guilt-free choice to become a mom and stay at home with her children; or, alternately, become partner, dean, president, or laureate.

If it is indeed her choice (and not the result of coercion) a woman should not feel shame (or be made to feel ashamed) for making any choice. This choice should not be multiple choice: doctor, lawyer, scholar, politician, or writer. This freedom of choice, this choice feminism, need to allow, without judgement, “dropping out” to become a “full-time mother.”

I don’t know is this bodes well with Linda Hirshman in either Homeward Bound or her new book, Get to Work : A Manifesto for Women of the World:

“What do you need to live a good life in the real world? Among other things, a real job-and changing diapers isn’t one. “Opting out” is a trade-off that is almost guaranteed to blow up in your face, sooner or later. Linda Hirshman’s Get to Work-a clarion call for stay-at-home moms to blast out of the house-is a rocket-propelled grenade aimed directly at the mommy wars, and offers a bold plan for all women to find and be able to pay for the kinds of satisfying lives that a grown-up should want to lead.”

I studied feminist theory in college (Marxist-feminism, French feminism, Postmodern Feminism, Deconstructionism) and the objective was to dismantle the master’s house without the master’s tools. Yes, the goal was to reduce the master’s house to rubble, but what I fear has been built in its place looks much the same.

As far as I could tell, the original goal of feminism was to redefine a woman’s role in society from being a man’s possession (from daughter to wife) to being an equal to men. Feminism was about tearing off the patriarchal yoke. Unfortunately, if I am reading it right, Linda Hirshman believes that one yoke should be replaced by another: feminist expectations.

In other words, as a woman, If you have the potential to rule the world and usurp men, it is your responsibility above all else so to do. Until then, the struggle must continue unabated.

This isn’t about attaining choice, this is about attaining control.

One technique of control is manipulation and Linda Hirshman and her book, Get to Work, is using shame, judgement, and disappointment in order to make empowered, first-class, wealthy, affluent, elite, a-type, pedigreed women feel bad about themselves and their choices if their choices don’t include “living up to your full potential” as defined by becoming partner, dean, president, or laureate.

And that is not choice, that is obligation: exchanging one yoke for another; one societal expectation for another.

I love boobies. I have always loved boobies. What’s not to love?

A pair of beautiful boobies

These are the only things I will ever call boobies because they are actual dancing boobies!

A pair of beautiful dancing boobies

A great pair of beautiful dancing boobies

An impressively big booby

I refuse to refer to a woman’s breasts as boobies ever.

Blue-footed Booby From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Blue-footed Booby

Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Aves
Order: Pelecaniformes
Family: Sulidae
Genus: Sula
Species: S. nebouxii

Binomial name
Sula nebouxii
Milne-Edwards, 1882

The Blue-footed Booby (Sula nebouxii) is a bird in the Sulidae family which comprises ten species of long-winged seabirds. This seabird is a very tame bird and lacks the fear instinct that other birds have. It is no larger than the size of a goose (about 3 to 4 pounds). The female boobies are larger than the male counterparts.

The name Booby comes from the Spanish word bubi, which means “Stupid fellow.” This is because the Blue-footed Booby is known to be clumsy on the land, in addition to being known to alight on boats, where they were once captured and eaten.

The natural breeding habitat of the Blue-footed Booby is arid, tropical and subtropical islands off the Pacific coast of South America from Peru to Mexico including, most famously, the Galápagos Islands.

The Blue-footed Booby’s diet consists entirely of fish. The birds dive into the ocean, sometimes from great height, and swim underwater in pursuit of their prey. The Blue-footed Booby hunts in flocks. When the lead Booby sees a fish present in the water, it will signal the rest of the group and they will all dive together to catch the fish. Surprisingly, the Booby does not like to eat the fish with the hunting group. They prefer to eat on their own, usually in early morning or late afternoon.

The courtship of the Booby consists of the male flaunting his blue feet/birds to impress the female. The female Booby will lay two or three eggs. Both male and female would take turns incubating the egg, while the other keeps a watch on its surroundings. Since the Booby does not have a brooding patch (a patch of bare skin on the underbelly) it uses its feet to keep the eggs warm. The chicks cannot control their body temperature up until about one month old. The chicks must be fed frequently, so the adults constantly hunt for fish. The chicks feed off the regurgitated fish in the adult’s mouth. If the parent Booby doesn’t have enough food for all of the chicks, it will only feed the biggest chick, ensuring that at least one will survive.

Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue-footed_Booby“

One of my dearest friends and clinical psychologist, Monique, popped me a Power Point presentation she researched and presented to her class on the topic of “Hooking Up.” She allowed me to publish the results here and they are rather quite compelling.

“Post hookup feelings of regret” was most interesting, “women’s feelings of regret centered on shame and self blame, compounded by not knowing their partner and lack of further contact with partner” while “men’s feelings of regret centered on a unattractive choice of hookup partner.”

Clinical Psychology Research on “Hooking Up” in College courtesy of Monique Moore

Definition
Hooking up (Paul, McManus & Hayes, 2000):

A sexual encounter which may or may not include sexual intercourse, usually occurring on only one occasion between two people who are strangers or brief acquaintances.

Frequency of Hookups
Paul & Hayes, 2002 survey of 187 college students (155 women, 32 men)

- 70% overall had participated in at least 1 hookup. (75% of men, 84% of women). Of that proportion, 91% had had more than one.

- Average number of hookups for both genders 10.28 (SD 11.22) during their college career
No significant difference between men/women in frequency of hookups

General statistics on hookups
Paul & Hayes, 2002

- 55% of students said that hookups involve anonymous partners

- 49% report that hookups are planned in terms of occurrence but not choice of partner

- 60% believe that either men or women are the instigators, whereas 28% believe that men are the instigators. 3% believe that women are the instigators

During hookups
Paul & Hayes, 2002

- 58% report that alcohol or drugs are typically present, 35% only alcohol, only 6% neither drugs nor alcohol

- 69% believe that hookup partners do not communicate, 25% think that partners engage in small talk, 4% say partners talk about what’s happening, 2% talk about future meeting, 1% talk about sexual history

- 16% of individuals who hooked up felt pressured during the hookup, whereas 34% felt out of control during the hookup (Paul, McManus & Hayes, 2000)

Post hookup
Men and women differed in what their feelings of regret consisted of (Paul & Hayes, 2002).

- Women’s feelings of regret centered on shame and self blame, compounded by not knowing their partner and lack of further contact with partner

- Men’s feelings of regret centered on a unattractive choice of hookup partner

Post Hookup
Other research suggests (Paul, McManus, & Hayes 2000) that post hookup

- 28% of participants that ‘hooked up’ but did not have intercourse and 49% of those that did have intercourse never saw their partner again

- Only 12% of all hookup participants indicated that a hookup evolved into a romantic relationship, that average length of which was 4 months.

Pluralistic Ignorance and hooking up
Pluralistic ignorance (Allport, 1924):

- When each individual in a group believes that their private attitudes are discrepant from the standard displayed by the public behavior of others. Accordingly, each group member conforms to their perception of the group standard, while believing that they are the only ones who don’t privately uphold it.

Research suggests (Lambert, Kahn & Apple, 2003)

- College students evaluated their own comfort level with hooking up as significantly lower than their estimate of same sex peer (F (1,262)= 7.55, p<.01). This effect was more pronounced for men.
Both men and women significantly overestimate the other gender's actual comfort with various hooking up behavior

Pluralistic Ignorance and Hooking up
Pluralistic Ignorance may be compounded by the communication surrounding hookups

- Many individuals say they discuss ONLY their positive hookup experiences with their friends, which may create a glorified norm that doesn’t accurately represent many hookup experiences. A vicious cycle ensues where if the hookup doesn’t meet the positive standards, students self blame and hide the experience, which just reinforces the positive standard (Paul & Hayes, 2002)

Personality and situational variables’ influence in hookups
What distinguishes individuals who don’t hookup (N-HU), from those who hookup without intercourse (HU), and who those who hookup with intercourse (HU-S)? (Paul, McManus & Hayes, 2000)

- Alcohol intoxication and fear of loss of individuality increases across hookup groups (N-HU HU-S individuals are differentiated from other groups by high impulsivity, low concern for personal safety, low dependency, and desire for high autonomy

Personality and situational variables’ influence in hookups
HU-S individuals are distinguished from HU individuals by a game playing love style (sexual conquest rather than connection)

- N-HU individuals prefer not to be the center of attention, are not fearful of intimacy, are least likely to have a game playing orientation toward partners, and are highest on self-esteem and have significantly longer romantic relationship commitments (M = 28.3, SD=19.95.) versus other groups (MHU=17.41, SD = 16.37 M HU-S=14.3, SD =14.3)

The Washington Post has a four-page article on the Wingman. Only one wingman? Amateurs! In high school and college, I was a member of wingteams. Via Wonkette, Gawker, and the Washington Post.

I had a wingteam in high school. We would go out in teams of three or five. Three to five guys together looks less desperate than two guys lurking.

Let’s say there are only two cute girls. The three guys move in and engage, making one another look funny and cool. One guy is predestined to disappear into the night after things gel. In a team of three or five, there is a simple system of “dibs” sometimes used, although most often the most senior, the most cool, or the most alpha come first while the newest, youngest, or lamest is predestined to break off.

Calling dibs is a serious business when men go out — very serious — and breaking dibs is a serious offense that may result in getting drummed out of the team, also known as “being excommunicated.” Dibs last as long as the the dibsholder likes. We men are never catty and rarely fight over women to say nothing of backstabbing or stealing someone elses dib (of course, it is open season outside of the team).

A single wingman? How pathetic. When I was in high school and college, going out was an orchestrated mission with strategy, with tactics, and with easily-definable goals with success and failure metrics and defined exit strategies.

Women didn’t have a chance.

“In the bitingly funny, razor-sharp I Love You, Nice to Meet You, platonic friends Kevin Bleyer (“The Daily Show with Jon Stewart???) and Lori Gottlieb give the no-holds-barred low-down on coupling up from the both the male and female points of view. Or as they like to put it, “Twice the perspective, half the insight??? (after all, what do they know – they’re still single).”

“Like romance anthropologists, Lori and Kevin deconstruct every key moment in the lifecycle of a relationship, from what the fake purse-grab really means when the check comes (how hard is it to find your wallet in a purse the size of doughnut?) to fighting etiquette (Is all fair when love is war?) to who gets “home couch advantage??? in couples therapy. Based on stories from their own dating experiences (funny for you, mortifying for them), I Love You, Nice to Meet You is a hilarious and eye-opening collection of “anecdates??? from a guy and a girl who just want to find the one but – lucky for you – haven’t.”

What People are Saying about I Love You, Nice to Meet You : A Guy and a Girl Give the Lowdown on Coupling Up

“The best new funny book about dating on planet Earth, perhaps in the entire universe, and certainly in the Milky Way. Even Tolstoy and God together couldn’t write something as funny and cool and weird and wonderful as this.”
—Molly Jong-Fast, author of Normal Girl and The Sex Doctors in the Basement

“I Love You, Nice to Meet You is funny, affecting, blunt and useful. Kevin and Lori are generous to old flames (well, most of them) and unsparing on themselves. This book may or may not help you find true happiness. But it will give you good, sound advice about what not to talk about over that first cup of coffee, or what items that are best not displayed in your medicine cabinet. Their alternating interpretations make us laugh at the gaffes we have all committed in hope of love. But they still hold out hope for love.”
—Scott Simon, host of NPR’s Weekend Edition Saturday

“For lonely urban singles, here–finally–is a warm, witty companion to crawl into bed at night with. The bad news is it’s a book. The good news is, “I Love You, Nice to Meet You” is very funny, only costs a low one-time fee, and won’t call you regularly at 1 a.m. ‘just to say hi’ (I forget in which chapter, but it’s covered). Shake up a cosmo for one and enjoy.”
—Sandra Tsing Loh, author of A Year in Van Nuys“The funniest book about dating to date. Gottlieb and Bleyer guide us through the twists and turning points in every relationship, providing insight, fresh perspectives, personal anecdotes and hearty laughs along the way. Read it in one big gulp, or savor slowly, bite by bite.”
—Valerie Frankel, author of Hex and the Single Girl and The Girlfriend Curse

“It’s amazing that this is a funny book because this is one exhaustingly detailed compendium of everything that could ever go wrong in every stage a love relationship. At long last, you, the book buying public, will never again have to actually participate in this barbaric uncivilized ritual to become the grizzled cynical veteran of bad love you were destined to be. For this we all owe Kevin Bleyer and Lori Gottlieb a debt of gratitude.”
—Merrill Markoe, original head writer of The Late Show with David Letterman and author of It’s My F—ing Birthday: A Novel.

“Sure, chivalry died. But it got replaced by something much funnier–and luckily Lori Gottlieb and Kevin Bleyer are here to describe it. In dueling essays, the authors spar, match wits, and reveal startling truths about contemporary relationships.Whether you’re searching for the soulmate you have yet to meet, or getting increasingly irritated at the one you found already, this book provides the antidote: pure laughter.”
—Jenny Lyn Bader, co-author He Meant, She Meant: The Definitive Male-Female Dictionary

Reviews of I Love You, Nice to Meet You : A Guy and a Girl Give the Lowdown on Coupling Up

“Knowing that bad dates make good stories, Gottlieb (Stick Figure: A Diary of My Former Self) and Bleyer, a writer for The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, share a collection of “anecdates” in this he-said she-said guide to “coupling up” that has not infrequent flashes of true hilarity—a rarity among the ever swelling ranks of humorous dating guides. The authors, good friends who have never been an item (“not now, not then”), provide individual interpretations on the standard fare of relationship topics, but cleverly; chapter titles include “Venue Ask Her Out – Is ‘location, location, location’ the key to getting a second date?” and “I’ll Show You Mine, If You Show Me How – Is there any civilized way to get naked with a new lover?” Insights such as “If you cry about anything less than the death of a mother…you’re doomed,” “Oprah is pornography for women” and “a week of uninterrupted physical presence isn’t a sign of love. It’s a stakeout,” make Gottlieb and Bleyer’s stiff shots of wisdom go down more like a fizzy summertime cocktail, helping to make the dating game, if not always fun, at least fun to read about.”
—Publishers Weekly

I have terminated with extreme prejudice my subscriptions to Match.com, eHarmony.com, and Chemistry.com.

“I was looking for love in all the wrong places, looking for love in too many faces.” It was fruitless and depressing.