Bad Marriages Break Men's Hearts, Too

As a postscript to "Bad Marriages Break (Women's) Hearts," I'd like to share an article that I found just a day or two after I last blogged. "Bad Marriages Harder on Women's Health" by Kathleen Doheny appeared in the online edition of U.S. News & World Report as a response to the aforementioned research linking stressful marriage to an increased risk of metabolic syndrome in women. However, this version of the report included some info that the others conveniently omitted.

Specifically, the U.S. News article includes commentary from Dr. Debra Umberson of the University of Texas at Austin. Dr. Umberson, who is also an expert on the health effects of marital stress, reveals that her research paints a different picture--one with a much darker palette for men: "'Basically, we find that marital strain undermines the health of men and women,' she says, adding that perhaps the men in [Nancy] Henry's study had their health influenced in a different way." (ital added)

According to her CV, Umberson has been publishing her work on the interaction between gender and marital conflict for several years now, yet I can't recall major media players jumping all over it in the way they did the recent University of Utah study. (Correct me if I'm wrong, please. Some of you may remember news stories that I'm forgetting.) Could it be that the American media is not as interested in publicizing how unhappy relationships affect men's health? If not, why not?

My initial thought was that with so many men defecting from traditional marriage bonds, conservative-slanted publications might be squelching any research that would further dissuade them from tying the knot. But then it occurred to me that we also live in a society that clings to certain preconceptions about gender roles which make it less acceptable for men to be emotionally invested in their relationships or to exhibit depression and other outward signs of distress over relationship conflict. Women's magazines remind us that relationships aren't central to a man's identity, that instead of moping by the phone and overanalyzing with friends, a guy lets his troubles roll off his back along with big drops of sweat at the gym. In effect, American women are taught that relationship failure will leave them on the verge of collapse, while men are taught that their hearts should take a lickin' and keep on tickin'. So the suppression of research proving that men aren't as invulnerable as we'd like to think fits the dominant cultural message about gender roles.

Whatever the reason that Umberson's findings were overlooked, Singletude is setting the record straight for readers here: Marital problems depress both women and men and may increase the likelihood that both sexes will develop health issues. Henry's research is not and surely will not be the final word.

Whew! Just had to get that off my chest. Now back to your regularly scheduled blogging!


Do you think more public attention is paid to research that reinforces gender stereotypes as opposed to research that disproves them? Can you think of any other reasons that Henry's study was so well publicized while Umberson's contradictory results were not? What do you think might explain the discrepancy between their conclusions? Have you noticed news sources applying selective reporting to singles issues as well?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a Singletude Q&A or your rant or rave in a Singletude Sound-off!

Bad Marriages Break (Women's) Hearts

No, that title is not a juicy little morsel of schadenfreude. I'm not the kind of single who's always itching to sink my teeth into the misery of some poor unhappily married couple. Singletude wants single and married people alike to be happy. However, acquiring a marriage license doesn't guarantee happiness any more than singleness guarantees multiple cat ownership, which is why research warning of the pitfalls of the marriage made in hell is so desperately needed.

The research in question hails from the University of Utah. Ordinarily, I would pick one news report from a major media outlet and respond to it, but rather than reprinting a standard press release, most web sites chose to conduct their own interviews, so no single article captured the full picture, a fact I found interesting in itself. In summary, the study revealed a link between stressful marriages and metabolic syndrome in women.1-5 Metabolic syndrome is characterized by high blood pressure, blood sugar, and triglycerides; low HDL, the form of cholesterol considered "good"; and obesity in the abdominal region. All these symptoms put one at increased risk of heart attack1-5, stroke1,3,4, and diabetes1-5. The study also showed a correlation between marital strife and depression in both sexes1-5, and we know that depression can lead to health problems. However, oddly enough, unhappily married men were not more likely than their contented counterparts to develop metabolic syndrome.1-5

The study followed 276 couples.1-5 Sources couldn't seem to agree on whether couples had been married for 201,3 or 272,4,5 years on average or on the participants' age range, cited alternately as 40-701 or 32-762,5. The couples filled out questionnaires about marital conflict and depression levels and were then examined at the university's health clinic. Encouragingly for the married set, only 27% of women and 22% of men reported unhappy marriages.2,5 (I say "only" because I found this figure to be low, though I'm sure any bad marriage is one bad marriage too many for the people involved.)

The gender difference in incidence of metabolic syndrome was hypothesized to be due to the more central role that relationships play in women's heads--err, lives.2 One of the study's authors, Ph.D. candidate Nancy Henry, said, "Women seem to nurture relationships more than men do and attach significance to the emotions within relationships more than men do. ...Men...don't take as much stock in relationships with respect to their self-image, their self-concept, and those kinds of things."2 The symptoms of metabolic syndrome were probably caused by the flood of stress hormones that accompany relationship conflict.1,2,5 One commentator, Christine Northam, a couples therapist, also attributed the results to "the fact that women's hormonal profile[s are] more complex than men's." She then claimed that "women...tend to worry more about their health than men [do]," presumably increasing stress.4

Only one report, based on the university's press release, mentioned that previous divorce was also a risk factor and skimmed over this bit of trivia as quickly as possible.1,3 I emphasize it here because it was in line with previous research pointing to relationship loss as the major predictor of unhappiness, not singleness.

All the articles suggested modifications to diet and exercise routines to improve cardiovascular health1-5, and two promoted counseling2,5, but all of them were careful to clarify that they weren't recommending that women ditch their husbands en masse.1-5 Instead, Dr. Tim Smith of the U. of UT hoped that partners would focus on "the quality of [their] emotional and family lives." His goals for troubled couples included "getting along better and enjoying each other more, improving [their] mood."1

While Singletude is thankful for any study that shatters the myth of the marriage panacea, it would be even better if the researchers had included single men and women as a basis for comparison. At what rate do singles develop metabolic syndrome? What are the levels of depression among singles? How do never-married singles differ on these measures from divorced or widowed singles?

Furthermore, I'm a little troubled at the attitudes toward divorce that cropped up in these articles. On one hand, much of the media preferred to ignore the finding that divorce was a significant contributor to coronary disease. As noted earlier, the loss of a relationship can have deleterious effects on both physical and psychological health. On this matter, singles advocates and the pro-marriage crowd are aligned--we both want to publicize the profound impact of divorce. Curiously, the media didn't take advantage of that opportunity here.

They did, however, make it plain that the researchers discouraged divorce. Their prescription was "improving intimate relationships,"1 as well as committing to healthier eating and exercise habits. There was no discussion of how participants could magically "improve their relationships" after 20 years or more of presumably trying to do just that. Perhaps the researchers have been concocting an oxytocin nasal spray currently awaiting FDA approval. This study would make great promotional literature!

Far be it from me to portray divorce as a desirable solution to marital discord, but I also recognize that sometimes it's necessary. The divorced may be, on average, less happy and healthy than singles or the happily married, but how do they stack up against the unhappily married? Do these researchers expect us to believe that the unhappily married really have it better off? If you're married to a chronic cheater, an abuser (physical or emotional), a criminal, an addict, or even someone who just makes you miserable every day, day after day...sometimes the initial pain of separation may be worth the years of peace and stability that follow. And some singles-again do--gasp--get a second chance at love!

Again, I don't mean to push divorce as an acceptable escape hatch from problems that are better addressed by working on your own faults and foibles, but it bothers me that the researchers refuse to acknowledge that sometimes it is a sad but unavoidable outcome. I wish I'd seen a quote that sounded more like this: "The results of this study shouldn't be seen as justification to walk out on your spouse, and we hope that your first line of defense against these symptoms will be to get counseling and tackle interpersonal problems that might be defeating your relationship. But sometimes, unfortunately, a relationship may be so emotionally unhealthy and unsalvageable that it is in your best interest, physically and psychologically, to end it." What's wrong with that (other than that it doesn't fit into the agenda of a matrimaniacal society)?

Most of all, I'm concerned about what this study says about gender relations and the casual attitude with which Henry dismissed the health dangers to women as part and parcel of the natural female preoccupation with relationships. There are two disturbing assumptions here. The first is that women should derive so much of their psychological wellbeing from marriage, and the second is that men should not. Though the researchers gave lip service to reducing relational conflict, I get the sense that they are tolerant of normative expectations that a woman should invest more in a relationship than a man. I ask you, dear readers, to consider whether that very attitude may even be causing some of the marital problems that these couples face. I also find it interesting that there were no differences between husbands and wives on measures of depression. In opposition to Henry's conclusion, this implies to me that both sexes are equally stressed by interpersonal conflict and that women's bodies simply have a harder time recuperating from it. This would be a physiobiological difference, not a difference in relationship investment.

In general, though, I'm encouraged by this study. It honestly describes the health consequences of strained marital relations and doesn't try to obfuscate the data to further a conservative ideology that marriage cures all ills. That's a step in the right direction. Now if only these researchers can turn their baby step into a giant leap...


What do you think about this study? Why do you think women in troubled marriages had a higher incidence of metabolic syndrome than their male partners did? What do you think about the researchers' conclusions regarding why unhappily married women are at greater health risk than their husbands? Do you agree with the researchers about what should be done to minimize that risk? Do you believe that a bad marriage is better or worse than a divorce?


Sources

1. University of Utah
2. CNN.com
3. MSNBC
4. BBC News
5. Health.com


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a Singletude Q&A or your rant or rave in a Singletude Sound-off!

When Relationship Compromise Is Self-compromise

Relationships demand compromise. We hear it again and again from well-meaning friends, relatives, and mental health counselors. At the same time, a long list of teachers, mentors, and great philosophers remind us to be true to ourselves, to follow our hearts. When I was growing up, one of my favorite quotes was:

If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away. --Henry David Thoreau

If there's a message of compromise in there somewhere, it's using a pretty good cloaking device!

If you do have hopes of one day sharing your life with a significant other, a certain amount of compromise will be inevitable to keep the peace. But when does it become self-compromise to the point that you are now marching to someone else's drummer?

I pondered over whether or not to publish this post for a good week since the question arises from a matter in my personal life, and I've made it a point that Singletude is not a personal blog. And yet, I think this question is so universally applicable that it would be a lost opportunity not to address it here. So bear with me while I invite you to step into my world for a moment.

Recently, I ended a relationship with a man I'll call Andrew. (Yes, a relationship. Didn't think I had those, huh? ;)) He was a beautiful person in many ways, so it pained me deeply when things didn't work out between us. But the problem was that he and I had numerous lifestyle and belief differences which would have demanded a great deal of compromise had we decided to build our lives together. As I began to realize how vast our differences were, I found myself sinking into depression due to both the impending loss of someone I cared for so much and the self-doubt and -criticism stirred by our disagreements.

Since there were lots of things that Andrew and I loved about each other, he hoped we could compromise, reminding me that that's what people do in relationships. But it hurt to know that there were so many aspects of myself that he wanted me to change. (To be fair, it probably hurt him that some of his life choices, values, and habits were hard for me to accept, as well.) I started questioning everything from my career path to my philosophy of child rearing to my artistic sensibilities, wondering if he was right that these were areas in which I needed to compromise in the interest of reaching a middle ground with someone who had different ideas. Andrew assured me that a willingness to compromise was a mark of maturity and dedication to a relationship, and I knew that, to an extent, he was right.

To an extent. Those were the operative words. My relationship with Andrew highlighted a question I'd been puzzling over for awhile on my own: When is compromise an appropriate sacrifice for the betterment of a relationship, and when is it too costly a self-sacrifice?

As time passed and I tried on some of those compromises for size, I felt worse and worse about what I was compromising. Although I thought the world of Andrew, I was less and less excited about us as the sacrifices I would have to make mounted and I felt increasingly less accepted for who I was. It occurred to me that my singletude was slipping away, and I began to feel like a hypocrite. (For those not in the know, singletude isn't the attitude that it's necessarily better to be single than coupled but that it's definitely better to be single than in a relationship in which you can't be a happy, healthy individual.)

To compound my confusion, I wondered if I was just unhappy because I had unrealistic ideas about relationships. Perhaps all long-term relationships would require this kind of compromise, in which case the problem was me and my own self-centeredness. After all, the compromises Andrew was asking of me didn't seem unreasonable in his eyes, just as the compromises I was asking of him didn't seem unreasonable in mine. Yet, in the end, neither of us was willing to change.

Some observers may see one or both of us as selfish, stubborn, or intolerant. Others may wave the banner of independence and laud us for following our own paths and refusing to change for anyone else. I suspect that for most relationships to succeed, a certain amount of compromise is a necessary ingredient. But there's a fine, almost invisible line between what you should and shouldn't compromise, and equally blurry is the degree to which you should compromise on it.

Let me clearly state that I don't think love should be measured by that line. I know there are people who believe that love should conquer all and that if you don't practically rip your heart out in sacrifice, you must not have valued the relationship enough. I say that if you rip your heart out in sacrifice, you have nothing left to love with. Selflessness is admirable but not when you give up so much of yourself that you become an empty shell. I don't believe that kind of self-compromise is indicative of love any more than any other act of self-hatred. So I think it's unfair and inaccurate to surmise that Andrew and I (or any other couple in a similar situation) could've made it work if only we'd loved each other more.

For most people, though, I think it can be difficult, as it was for me, to discern when you're exercising your heart, making it work a little harder for someone else, from when you're on the verge of sacrificing it. By no means have I come up with a foolproof method of distinguishing between the two conditions, but I think my recent experience did teach me a few rules of thumb about when to compromise and when to stand your ground. Here are some questions you should ask yourself before you compromise for your partner (and please be aware that these can apply to any relationship, not just a romantic one):



1. Will this compromise affect my day-to-day happiness?

Many compromises involve relatively minor changes to your daily routine that have little impact on your overall life satisfaction. For instance, let's say your alarm is set to a death metal station, but your mate doesn't like to be blasted out of a sound sleep every morning. He or she prefers to wake up to the gentle strains of Beethoven, which, while not your ideal, don't make you wish someone would knock you back out when you wake. Setting the alarm to a classical station is, therefore, a reasonable compromise. Yeah, you'll miss your Slayer, but it won't, er, kill you.

Other compromises concern situations or events that occur so rarely that they have little significance for your general happiness. For example, your families may live far apart, forcing you to compromise on where you spend the holidays. However, this is a conflict you only face once a year, so it doesn't even register as a blip on your radar of relationship satisfaction the rest of the time.

On the other hand, some compromises threaten to dig deep, permanent trenches in your happiness. Let's say a woman deeply desires a large family and marries a man who doesn't really want kids. They compromise and have one baby. The painful result is that every day the woman longs to have more children while the man resents the work he has to invest in just one. Maybe another couple can't agree on where to live. The man grew up on a ranch in Wyoming, loves it there, and can't imagine living anywhere else. The woman craves a fast-paced city lifestyle and favors Boston, New York, or Washington, DC. They compromise by settling in a small city in the Midwest, but the man always misses the big open skies of Wyoming, and the woman chafes for a bigger, busier metropolis. These are examples of compromises that impinge on day-to-day happiness. And the unhappier you are, the more stressful it will be to your relationship.


2. Will this compromise change who I am?

Some well-intentioned people may advise you not to compromise on certain values that they consider integral to who you are, such as religious practices or the pursuit of various career goals or hobbies. But really only you can determine how important something is to your sense of self. Someone might be fine with promising to raise his children Catholic so that he can marry a Catholic wife, whereas someone else might be so committed to her Muslim faith that she would have to turn off her conscience to raise her children in another religion. A young dental hygienist may not feel defined by her job and have no trouble giving it up if her significant other got a promotion that would take them overseas, whereas a college professor's position may be central to his identity so that he would be devastated if he had to leave his department due to his partner's relocation.

In short, you should steer clear of any compromise that would alter a core part of yourself that you highly value. I emphasize those last words because change is good when you're ready and willing for it. But if changing yourself is tantamount to revoking the beliefs, values, interests, or objectives that are most important to you, then you will end up unhappy, which will take an equally unhappy toll on your relationship, as discussed in 1. Besides, what does it say about your partner's love for you if he or she wants you to change the very things that make you who you are? Answer: Nothing good.


3. Is my partner compromising too?

This is a biggey, and the answer has to be yes. The definition of compromise is "a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands." (italics added) A one-sided compromise is like one hand clapping. Compromise only deserves that label when both partners are meeting each other halfway.

How you accomplish that is up to you. You might agree to give up something this time if your partner will give up something next time, take on a new responsibility if your partner will help with it, or do something you both like instead of something just one of you loves. All of these are different examples of compromise, but what they have in common is that both partners are sacrificing.

If you're the only one sacrificing, or if you're sacrificing more than your partner, you'll be headed straight back down that road to Unhappyville. Granted, the equity of compromise is subjective, but what matters is that you and your loved one believe your compromise is equitable. For instance, if you're both okay with dividing labor along traditional male-female lines, fine. But if one of you thinks he or she is getting shafted in that role, then you have a problem.


4. Am I really willing to make this compromise?

The worst thing you can do when negotiating a compromise is to vow that changes are forthcoming only to relapse into old habits when asked to make good on your promise. For compromise to work, you need to commit to it. It may seem like the perfect solution to offer to cook dinner while your honey vaccuums the floor, but when you repeatedly "forget" to go to the grocery store or schedule too many business dinners, all bets are off, and your partner will be even more disgruntled than before because you reneged on your word. Before you agree to a compromise, be honest with yourself and your partner about what compromises you're really willing to make. To continue with the example above, if you recoil at the sight of raw chicken fillets and have convinced yourself by now that you like burnt toast, a compromise that has you wearing a chef's hat is unrealistic.

Instead, look for compromises that you know you can carry out with a little effort. So maybe you can't deliver in the kitchen. Okay. Then you might do the laundry or take care of the lawn or put the kids to bed every night. Whatever the compromise, you have to sincerely be willing to tackle and follow through with it.

This also means believing in the compromise. On some level, you have to agree that it's necessary and the right thing to do so that even if it wasn't your first choice, you know that it is, nevertheless, a good choice. By the same token, once you've settled on the compromise, you shouldn't feel resentful or regretful about it. If you do, that's a sign that you may want to return to the preceding guidelines to see how your compromise stacks up.

Ultimately, if you can't embrace the compromise and stick to it, it will be a sticking point for your relationship. There's no justification for spinning your wheels into the ground if you know that you can't get behind a compromise with enough faith and determination to push your relationship out of a rut.



Now, there is one question that you might think I've left out. On the contrary, it's the question that I hope you won't ask when judging whether you should compromise in a relationship: Do I love him/her enough to compromise?

People ask this question all the time, and I believe it contributes to many devastating choices. Why? Because, as I said earlier, compromise is not a measure of love and should not be used that way. If the compromise you're contemplating will have such a detrimental effect on you that you need to reevaluate your whole relationship, then it's a compromise that violates at least one of the principles above. And if you compromise under those conditions, you compromise yourself. Any decision made out of self-compromise is not a decision made out of love. It may be made out of fear (of losing someone), guilt (of seeming selfish), ignorance (of alternatives), or self-righteousness (another discussion in itself). But not love. Love is absent from any compromise that engenders chronic unhappiness, is inconsistent with one's identity, unfairly burdens one partner, or is insincerely made.

Please note that I'm not saying someone who makes such a compromise doesn't love his or her partner. But I'm also not saying that he or she does. What I'm saying is that love has nothing to do with it. The reason I'm so exacting about this is because too many people make untenable compromises because they've bought the lie that compromise is a measure of love, and the more you love, the more you compromise. Believe me, you can love someone more than a fish loves the water and still not want to compromise yourself for him or her, and, conversely, people who do self-compromise don't do it out of love. Yeah, I know that will leave a bad taste in the mouth of anyone who has a martyr complex, so if it's any comfort to you, I was one of your number for years and am not pointing any fingers.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing that love doesn't entail giving generously to your partner. But you shouldn't give yourself away in the process. When the potential for self-compromise threatens to become reality, sometimes the most loving thing you can do is walk away rather than ask someone else to change for you.


Where do you draw the line between healthy compromise and unhealthy self-sacrifice in a relationship? Have you ever been in a relationship in which you compromised too much? How did you recognize that you had compromised too much? Did you choose to be single, or did you stay in the relationship? What advice would you give to someone trying to decide between singlehood and self-compromise for the sake of a relationship?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a Singletude Q&A or your rant or rave in a Singletude Sound-off!

Thankful to Be Single

With Turkey Day almost here, you're looking forward to digging into some stuffing, mashed potatoes, and catch-up conversation with extended family.

Okay, let's be honest. In reality, you're dreading Aunt Hattie's pukin' pumpkin pie, Uncle Rufus's stories that all begin with "when I was your age," and the inevitable five-pound weight gain.

But whatever you may or may not be thinking about Thanksgiving 2008, chances are it has nothing to do with giving thanks. Yet thankfulness has surprising health benefits. Expressing gratitude combats stress and depression and improves vitality and longevity. It's associated with increased happiness, enthusiasm, and determination, as well as with better job and academic performance and more satisfying relationships.

Contrary to popular myth, which assumes that a holiday centered on family can't possibly be attractive to singles, we know that single people can and do have much to be thankful for. A positive single doesn't merely tolerate singlehood but finds ways to appreciate it. As an example, while I've been single, I've always been most thankful for the additional time I've had to devote to my writing. As precious as relationships can be, they do require a sacrifice of time, which may interfere with beloved hobbies and pursuits. So during the seasons that I've been on my own, I've redirected the energy that I might otherwise have spent on someone else toward the accomplishment of my creative goals.

This Thanksgiving, I challenge you to spend some time contemplating at least one aspect of singleness that you are most thankful for. If you are religious or spiritual, offer thanks by praying, singing, burning candles, or lighting incense. For those who enjoy ceremony, commemorate the object of your gratitude on a piece of paper, then release it to the wind or bury it in the earth like a time capsule. Otherwise, try journaling about what you are thankful for or, if it's not too personal, sharing it with others, especially those who have misconceptions about the single life and who would be inspired to hear how fulfilling it can be.

Oh, and one more thing you should definitely be thankful for--all those single cuties at the gym working off the mashed potatoes alongside you!


What part of the single life are you most thankful for? Why?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a Singletude Q&A or your rant or rave in a Singletude Sound-off!

How to Be Attractive to Singles...and Others, Too

Nerds Do It Better alerted me to this post, 37 Simple Things You Can Do to Be More Attractive to the Opposite Sex. Actually, most of these tips apply not only in romantic situations but in any social environment, whether at work, in school, or with friends. Quite possibly, you'll be familiar with some if not all of them-- be confident, stay in shape, be optimistic, and the like--but the real gems are hidden in the links, which serve up practical and sometimes innovative resources for everything from honing your sense of humor to whitening your teeth with home remedies.

Also, ladies should be especially attentive to the section aimed at women. Although I don't endorse all of them, there are some good pointers here that you don't see every day (i.e. learn to accept a compliment, dress consistently with who you are, etc.). (There's a section for men, too, but I didn't find the advice there to be out of the ordinary.)

I thought I'd round out the list with Singletude's own recommendations for increasing your attraction factor, whether your goal is dating, friend finding, job hunting, party crashing, or anything else that demands you make a good impression:


1. Cultivate your interests. Interesting people have interesting skills, hobbies, and goals. If you sack out on the couch every night like a lumpy potato, stop vegging and start juicing up your life with those guitar lessons you keep postponing or that novel you always wanted to write. Well-rounded singles have more entrees to conversation, are more impressive to others, and are more fun to talk to. Besides, you never know when that newly acquired talent for gargling while playing the kazoo will land you a job...or at least fifteen minutes of fame.

2. Find a job that you like...or, better yet, love. Singles who like what they do for a living radiate a positive, satisfied glow that attracts others like moths to flame. Because these individuals are living self-actualized lives, others admire them and are inspired by them. Conversely, people who are forever whining about intolerable job situations can be pretty intolerable themselves. If you're unhappy in your current career and envision yourself on another path, you owe it to yourself to try on a different job hat for size. As a bonus, you may find others responding favorably to your newfound happiness and zest for life.

3. Be open-minded. To new ideas, new people, new places, new activities. A healthy sense of adventure is attractive, as is respect for others' opinions and modes of life, even if you disagree with them. If you freeze out others on first contact, you might miss out on some terrific opportunities to have fun and develop relationships. You know the phrase "don't knock it till you try it"? Well, tattoo that on your brain.

4. Be personable. Go out of your way to introduce yourself, strike up a conversation, or offer help when needed. People naturally gravitate toward those who seem to like them. (This is called reciprocal liking.) In other words, you have to be friendly to win friends.

5. Be present. Ah, yes, "live for the moment." You've heard it a thousand times before. But what does it mean? Singles who are "in the moment" are excited about who and what is around them. They pay attention to those they're with and revel in their current circumstances rather than moping about the past or procrastinating until the future. If you regularly battle with these demons, realize that nothing you do today can change the past, but you're building the foundation for the future right now, in the present, so everything you do from hereon out counts. You need to give 110%! Some people may have a hard time being present because of depression. If you suspect you're one of them, please see a therapist so you can regain your ability to enjoy the present. Remember: the present is the gift you give yourself. ;)

6. Carry the conversation. Somewhere between email, voice mail, and text messaging, the art of conversation began to die out. These days, articulate, communicative people are hard to come by. Yet conversation lays the groundwork for human interaction and continues to build and support a relationship throughout its lifespan. Singles who master the art of verbal expression have an advantage on the dating scene as well as on the job. But you don't have to be the next Shakespeare or Byron to talk a good talk. Just be enthusiastic, listen carefully, and keep up your end of the conversation. Don't expect your conversational partner to entertain you since that can be stressful for him or her and ultimately create an unfavorable impression. If you find yourself running out of things to say, ask questions. Most people like to talk about themselves and will be flattered you asked.

7. Connect to a higher power. Have you ever been in the presence of a spiritual teacher, maybe a nun or yogi or rabbi, and felt a deep sense of peace just sitting and listening to them? The sense of calm and purpose that permeates the lives of people of faith can be contagious. If you often feel irritable and stressed and are searching for meaning in life, make it a point to delve into spiritual traditions that interest you. Once you're more centered in your beliefs, you may find that, as a happy side effect, people are drawn to you. Notice I said "side effect," though. A spiritual transformation has to be something that evolves naturally out of your own desire for it. If you try to force it out of ulterior motives, others will see through the shallow depths of your disguise.

8. Know yourself. Your likes and dislikes. Your opinions. Your values. Your beliefs. Singles who are in touch with themselves have more to offer to others. If you've ever been around someone who had no distinct thoughts of his or her own, you probably know what I mean. People like to share and sometimes debate ideas, and if you haven't figured out what yours are, you're in danger of coming across as though you have all the personality of a bologna sandwich. In contrast, people who know themselves can be confident and decisive in conversation because they don't need to hem and haw and mull over how to present the best facade. If you're confused about who you are, try writing some lists of things that make you happy or unhappy, causes you believe in, pet peeves, etc. Instead of disengaging from controversial topics, watch the news or read the paper and monitor your responses to the headlines. You might also try journaling to force yourself to verbalize your feelings.


Including the original 37 tips on Nerds Do It Better's list, that brings us to a total of 45 things you can do to make yourself more attractive to others! So why are you still here reading? Go get started!


What would you add to this list of ways to be a more attractive person? Have you or someone you know tried any of these pointers and found that they did or didn't work?





Fun Link of the Day

Asexuality: The Other Orientation

Once upon a time, sexual orientation was a pretty simple concept. You were either attracted to people of the opposite sex or people of the same sex. Then, it gradually became clear that some people are attracted to both sexes, though sometimes more strongly to one than the other and sometimes only in certain phases of life. In case you get cocky and think you have it all figured out, there are also men who used to be women, women who used to be men, and men and women who dress like women and men even though they don't want to be women or men.

It's no wonder that with this overwhelming array of choices, some people are opting out and saying, "To hell with sex. I think I'll pass."

That's right. There is now a fifth (sixth?) sexual orientation emerging, and it has nothing to do with sex. In fact, that's the point. It's asexual.

Asexuality is, perhaps, the most invisible orientation in our sex-drenched society. In an age in which representatives of every imaginable sexual preference have fought for and won recognition, it is still inconceivable to much of the population that there are people who don't like, want, or need sex. But there's a good chance that some of the singles you meet every day are among the approximately 3 million Americans who identify as asexual.

The definition of asexuality is a lack of sexual attraction to either males or females. Asexuals may still experience and enjoy sexual arousal but not in response to other people, or they may have no interest in sexual activity whatsoever. Unlike people who have an aversion to sex due to a history of abuse or other trauma, asexuals simply don't have a desire for sex or view other people in a sexual light. Many can objectively label others as handsome or beautiful, as one would admire a painting or sculpture, but don't feel an accompanying attraction. They may wish to remain single, seek intimate relationships that don't include sex, or engage in intercourse solely to please a romantic partner.

No one knows how or why people don't develop a sexual interest in others, any more than they know how or why people become straight or gay. Many asexuals say that as far back as they can remember, they always felt uninterested in people as sexual beings, a sentiment that is echoed in the mainstream by those who relate growing up aware of their attraction to one sex or the other or both. It's possible that their genes code for lower hormonal levels or other anomalies that contribute to the absence of sexual desire, or they might have had deeply buried early childhood experiences that turned them off to sex. However, what's important is that they are the way they are, and in contrast to people who are disturbed by anxiety, repulsion, or indifference surrounding sex, asexuals are content with their lifestyles.

Asexuals come in all different physical packages, just like people of any other orientation; they have no identifying features. They are not, as one may be tempted to think, less physically attractive than others.

Millions of asexuals may feel alone or misunderstood in a world that idealizes sex as the highest form of fulfillment, essential to a happy, healthy life. But it really is only one piece of the happiness pie, and it's not in a flavor that everyone likes.

If you or someone you know is asexual, you may want to visit the Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN) to learn more and find support.


What do you think about asexuality and how our society relates to asexuals? If you or someone you know is asexual, can you share any stories about the experience of asexuals in a sexual world?


Other Sources
Asexuality
Sexless and Proud
Feature: Glad to Be Asexual
Asexuals Unite
Asexuality.Meetup.com
Study: One in 100 Adults Asexual
Asexuality: Prevalence and Associated Factors in a National Probability Sample


Fun Link of the Day

"She Says vs. He Says: Do Girls Really Like Dating Jerks?": A Singletude Response

The above debate between Christine Hassler and Jason Ryan Dorsey was featured on Yahoo! Personals and made waves across the Web. In truth, this question stirs up trouble wherever it goes but seldom incites a response more definitive than venomous diatribes from the ladies who've been screwed over by jerks and the nice guys who wish they'd done the screwing.

Okay, ouch. That hit a sore spot. Free band-aids for all.

Joking aside, the reason I'm rehashing this tired debate is because I think Hassler hits it right on the nose, finally:

Here's how the jerk spell works: we meet the jerk and in some twisted way are seduced by his confidence, charm, and passion. We don't see these as the disguises they are: confidence is really arrogance, charm comes from him being a player, and his passion is being the center of his own universe.

The jerk sniffs out our insecurities and uses them to reel us in with compliments that eventually turn into criticisms.

Unfortunately, her argument peters out in the same dried-up pool of murky excuses about women who like "a challenge" or "a little danger." Dorsey continues riffing on this theme without adding much beyond a welcome admonition to decent, humane men to forgo the jerk act for ethical reasons.

As someone who’s cried with numerous women (and men) who’ve been victims of a jerk (the female version is often called a more derogatory name, which I’m not a fan of, so I’ll just use the generic “jerk”), I can tell you that, with the exception of a small group of drama addicts, most people don't want a relationship that plays out like a Neil LaBute movie. They get caught in this kind of relationship for many reasons, but masochism is not one of them.

Let's return for a minute to the quote above from Hassler. To paraphrase, what women like about jerks are their positive traits--"confidence," "charm," "passion"--not their repugnant characteristics, which usually only appear after the woman's heart is hooked on his eloquent lines. In other words, what women like in a man is dominance. They want a guy who is in control of himself and his environment, who is, in essence, master of his domain. From an evolutionary standpoint, that guy has the goods to lead the pack and protect the home.

But women also want a man who is prosocial, which means that he cares about the home community and acts in its best interest. In contemporary relationship speak, he's sensitive.

Hang on, I know what you're thinking: Elsie, Elsie, Elsie. {hopeless shake of the head} What planet do you live on? Not the same one that brought us Jim Carrey and Adam Sandler and Steve Carell, right? In this here galaxy, the nice guy don't get the purdy lady, see?

Two words (well, names actually): Clark Kent and Superman.

As he goes about his business rescuing kittens and brats who need to get in Niagara Falls to get a better look at it, Superman is a prosocial guy. So is Clark Kent.

The Man of Steel is also a dominant guy. Clark Kent isn't.

Superman sets Lois Lane's heart aflutter every time he whooshes by. Clark Kent? Not so much.

The difference between Superman and Clark Kent is dominance, but they're both "good guys." The plethora of myths, legends, and DC comics with a virile hero at their center should be ample evidence that damsels in distress really do prefer the hero, right?

No? Well, then let's look at some research, brought to you by the leading academics in the country:

Graziano, W.G., Jensen-Campbell, L.A., Todd, M., & Finch, J.F. (1997). Interpersonal
attraction from an evolutionary psychology perspective: Women’s reactions to
dominant and prosocial men. In J.A. Simpson & D.T. Kenrick (Eds.),
Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 141-167). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jensen-Campbell, L.A., Graziano, W.G., & West, S.G. (1995). Dominance, prosocial
orientation, and preferences: Do nice guys really finish last? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 427-440.

Rainville, R.E. & Gallagher, J.G. (1990). Vulnerability and heterosexual attraction. Sex
Roles, 23, 25-31.

Sadalla, E.K., Kenrick, D.T., & Vershure, B. (1987). Dominance and heterosexual
attraction. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13, 22-26.

Touhey, J.C. (1974). Effects of dominance and competence on heterosexual attraction.
British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13, 22-26.

The above studies examine female attraction to dominant males, differentiating the prosocial variety from the aggressive variety, better known as jerks. Studies of this type usually present stories or reenactments with characters who exemplify the prosocial dominant and aggressive dominant male. The female participants are then asked to rate the men on a number of factors, including whether they would be attractive dates, sexual partners, marital partners, fathers, etc. Overwhelmingly, the research demonstrates that women prefer a prosocial dominant male to an aggressive dominant one.

But here's the twist: women also prefer dominant men to nondominant men, period. So if they can't find Superman, Lex Luthor will probably win out over Clark Kent. That is, if there's no prosocial dominant guy available, a girl will pick an aggressive dominant male before a nondominant one. However, this doesn't mean that she's attracted to his aggression (i.e. his "jerky-ness"); she's attracted to his dominance. I'd even venture to say that most women who choose a jerk aren't aware that he's a dominant male of the aggressive variety. After all, when was the last time you saw a woman swoon for a guy who cursed out the bouncer or forced his hand down her shirt? They just perceive his dominance signals--confidence, poise, status, charm, command--and make their selection based on that. In the early stages of dating, when a male suitor struts around with his best foot forward, there probably aren't any other criteria available to dissuade the female from her choice. Once the aggressive male's repulsive characteristics emerge, the girl's heart is already entangled in his lines, and she's left twisting and writhing in distress.

The same phenomenon can be observed among men who fall for a female jerk. Although her magnetic power might not be recognized or described as dominant, that's what it is. She dominates her female competition through her own irresistible blend of beauty, sensuality, charisma, flattery, charm. But as with men, women who are the cream of the crop can also be prosocial (kind, compassionate, generous, forgiving, understanding, etc.), or they can be aggressive (cold, hateful, selfish, envious, demanding...), and men are as prone to be deluded as women are.

So, no, women don't like jerks any more than guys like...well, you know. While everyone likes a little mystery in the beginning of a relationship, no one wants to wonder indefinitely whether they're loved or not. The fact that both sexes get mired in the game of jerks who play dirty is a testament to how very much we long for the exemplary qualities that jerks mimic.

(By the way, my Fun Link of the Day has no problem using that word I don't like, so check out the link if in doubt! :))


Have you ever dated a male or female jerk? Do you think women and/or men like jerks better than "nice guys/girls"? Why or why not?


Fun Link of the Day

Single and Shy: How to Work With Your Shyness

A few days ago, a Singletude reader, bobbyboy, suggested that I blog about the plight of the shy single. I can only suppose he suggested this because he sees right through my timid writer's persona and knows that inside lies a poised, confident tigress of an extrovert trying to claw her way out.

{sigh}

The truth is that, along with at least 40% of the population, whenever I meet with new people or even people I don't know well, my heart stomps like a clog dancer, and my insides whirl around and do-si-do. As a writer, I have a job that allows me to work in privacy most of the time. But as a single woman, my shyness can be a hindrance. It hampers me from meeting new people and inhibits me from revealing my full-on humorous, fun-loving personality to those I do meet.

Research indicates that people who have social anxiety, debilitating shyness across social settings, are less likely to marry. While Singletude recognizes that some people prefer to remain single, a problem arises when singles want to date but can't due to a profound fear of social situations. The suffering of a shy single isn't confined to his or her love life, either. Shy people may have a hard time forming friendships and business connections, which are particularly essential for a single person, who otherwise runs the risk of becoming socially isolated. Less likely to succeed at work or school, shy singles seem to have the cards stacked against them.

What's worse, although shyness may be learned, there's substantial evidence that some people are born temperamentally shy, so it's not a trait you can just "grow out of" if you try hard enough. That's why this post isn't about how to overcome your shyness but how to work with it. Although shyness is still a daily reality for me, I'll share with you some of the methods I've adopted to make it my friend instead of my foe.

First of all, you have to accept that it's okay to be shy, just as it's okay to be single. Shyness is a normal, adaptive personality variation, just as singlehood is a normal, adaptive state. Because shy people are more cautious than most, their genes were naturally selected and survived. You don't have to push yourself to become temperamentally different than you are, a task which is no more achievable than becoming 6'3" if you're 5'1".

Second, you need to conform your environment to who you are, not conform yourself to it. On the job front, it's absolutely fine to pick a position that requires mostly solitary work. Despite all the dire warnings of social psychologists, shy people can find job satisfaction in more careers than ever before. The explosion of the tech industry has provided all kinds of jobs where a worker's closest colleague is his computer. Creative types like audio producers, copywriters, graphic designers, and the like also work mostly in solitude and are judged by the quality of their output, not their communicational skills. The same applies to scientific researchers and mathematicians. In an effort to be greener and more family friendly, many businesses now allow their employees to telecommute, as well, reducing the need for face-to-face contact. If yours doesn't, approach your employer about giving it a trial run. Alternately, consider self-employment. Running your own business can be immensely rewarding, both financially and emotionally. Independent contractors, web retailers, caterers, pet sitters...These are just a few of the pros who run their own show and do so with limited personal contact.

On the home front, it's perfectly okay to live alone in a cottage in the country if you wake up smiling and refreshed every morning. Many shy singles need a place to retreat and recharge so they're ready for another bout with the world. If this applies to you, make your home your sanctuary. It's worth it to live a little farther from your workplace if it means you can afford to live by yourself. When you get home, don't feel obligated to answer the phone. That's what voicemail is for. Don't spend all evening responding to email, either. Force other people to respect your boundaries by responding during work hours only.

On the social scene, most shy singles tend to cultivate a few good friends rather than a circle of party-hopping, club-going butterflies. It's okay to dislike large crowds and parties, and it's equally okay to decline invitations to group events. A false sense of obligation has pinned many a shy single to the wall of a nightclub, commiserating with the nearest potted plant. This doesn't have to be you. If you know that you've never enjoyed social functions in the past, quit telling yourself that maybe next time will be different. It won't.

Instead, explain your shyness to the friend who thinks she's done you a favor by rescuing you from solitude on a Saturday night. Communication is very important here because you want her to know unequivocally that you're not refusing her invitation because you don't like or want to spend time with her. Inform your friend that you're painfully shy in crowds, that it's something you've struggled with all your life and have come to accept as part of who you are. Follow that up by inviting your friend to hang out, just the two of you. If your friend values your company, he'll be happy to make yours a one-on-one friendship. If he fades away, then he wasn't worth having as a friend.

No matter what, it's imperative that you remember that your friendship style is as valid and worthwhile as that of any Mr. or Ms. Popularity. No one is capable of maintaining more than a handful of close friendships at a time, and people who flit from one party to the next are less likely to have time to develop the rich, deep relationships that you have.

But what about when you, as a shy single, want to find new friends or potential dates? It probably seems like you act out the same scene in a different setting every time. Whether it's the bar, the break room, the gym, or the book club, you go with the best intentions of yakking it up with like-minded people and return alone, without any phone numbers or email addys, after burying your nose in a beer or feigning interest in a bulletin board for an hour. How do you overcome this paralyzing shyness?

The answer is you don't. Again, you work with what you have.

When at a social event, chances are you'll know at least one or two other people in the group. Try to sit near them and ask them to introduce you to other people so that you'll have an entree to conversation without having to think up lines about the weather. Hone in ASAP on what you have in common with whoever you've been introduced to--maybe you're both new in town, work in the same industry, or recently traveled to the same country--and center your conversation around that. It's easier to keep the conversation going if you know what you're talking about. If you find that you don't have anything to talk about, instead of hemming and hawing in a desperate attempt to revive a dying conversation, just excuse yourself and move on.

If you're going to a party or other function and know already that you'll be in a roomful of strangers, invite a friend to accompany you. Sometimes, all you need to boost your confidence is the knowledge that you have a safety net. You and your friend can work the room together, picking up the slack for each other in flailing conversations and providing solace for each other if either of you gets overwhelmed.

If you can't bring a friend, seek out others who are attending alone, especially those who are obviously ill at ease. Chances are they'll be especially grateful that you approached them and relieved them from the company of the potted plant. Plus, fellow introverts can make the best friends and lovers because they understand another shy single intrinsically. They won't throw earthshaking parties and insist that you be the guest of honor, they'll murmur in sympathy when you bemoan the speech you have to give tomorrow, they'll share their own tips and tricks for dealing with social anxiety, and most importantly, they'll be glad to give you lots of one-on-one time and plenty of downtime to yourself because they need the same to maintain their sanity.

Finally, don't overlook the Internet as a haven for shy singles. Today, there are whole web sites devoted to the socially anxious. Even those that attract a more general audience allow shy singles to fulfill some of their social needs without face-to-face (FTF) contact as well as to get to know potential FTF friends or romantic interests in a comfortable, nonthreatening environment. Since many shy singles are verbally oriented but can't display this talent under the pressure of an FTF introduction, they're thrilled to discover that the web is a more natural forum for them to shine. Most of all, shy singles have an advantage on the Internet because they can build relationships slowly in a virtual setting and delay FTF contact until they feel relaxed with their new friend or date, so they never have to wade through that awkward stage that turns off so many of their potential friends and lovers.

In the end, there will be some single introverts who will either refuse to embrace their shyness or will be so crippled by social anxiety that even the above tips aren't viable. In those cases, Singletude advises seeking a professional therapist who is experienced in treating social phobia. There are cognitive-behavioral techniques that can help painfully shy people work through their inhibitions as well as prescription medications that can alleviate some of the stress of social interaction.


Are you a shy single? If so, how does your shyness affect your life? What steps have you taken to either work with or combat your shyness?


Fun Link of the Day

Resolving Differences in Relational Needs

Last time, Singletude concluded with some questions about how to deal with differences in relational needs:

So is there hope if you and a loved one have different relational needs or the same relational needs in different quantities? Is there any way to break out of the habit of judging others' relational needs by our own? And, more to the point, is it possible to meet someone else's needs and still get our own needs met when those needs are different?

When differences in relational needs are causing dissatisfaction in a relationship, many therapists and self-help gurus wave the time-worn banner of COMMUNICATION. The solution to mismatched needs, they say, is to communicate those needs to each other.

Talking can help diffuse feelings of resentment and further a compromise if your needs are not too far apart. It can also bring to light mistaken assumptions about your needs or your partner's. For instance, using the example of togetherness versus independence, it may turn out that your seemingly clingy girlfriend would prefer to spend more time apart but thought you wanted to be a malignant growth on her hip. Or, using the example of self-disclosure versus privacy, maybe that friend who's about as talkative as the Mona Lisa would like to open up if she knew you wanted her to.

Even if discussion reveals that your needs really are at opposite ends of the spectrum, communicating can help you rethink how you judge your partner's relational needs. If you recall the story of Evan and I, for example, I mistakenly assumed that he didn't call me as often as I would have liked because he didn't care enough about me. After we talked, I understood that he did care about me but had lower communicational needs than I did. Sometimes, just knowing that different needs are different, not bad, can be enough to help you coexist with the differences. Occasionally, you may even realize that your own relational needs aren't reasonable and that you need to revisit the origin of those needs and learn to satisfy them in a more realistic way.

On the other hand, in some cases, even if you understand and empathize with another's needs, that can't bridge the Grand Canyon sized gap between their needs and yours. For instance, even though I revised my understanding of the significance of Evan's relational needs, nothing changed the fact that I still wanted more frequent communication than he did. You can rehash your needs till the sun goes supernova, but if they're not the same, nothing is ever going to make them the same. You may understand you partner better, but you still need what you need, and trying to forgo your own needs or fulfill needs you're not equipped to meet will only engender bitterness and frustration.

If you're in an otherwise happy dating relationship, friendship, working partnership, etc. and are intent on saving it, be honest with yourself about whether you can live with the differences in your relational needs. Remember that some aspect of your relationship will always be conflicted because you're not getting your need met in that area. However, all relationships require compromise, and if you're willing to compromise your relational needs, you have to also be willing to consciously and repeatedly let go of the hurt, disappointment, resentment, and perhaps anger that the denial of your needs will continually provoke.

The alternative solution is to make a preemptive strike, if you will, and end the relationship as soon as you realize that your needs are incompatible. If you're paying attention, this will be early on, so neither of you should be devastated when it doesn't work out. However, be sure to discuss your incompatible needs first so that your partner isn't clueless as to why you're dissatisfied. Give him or her a chance to respond in case you're mistaken but also be wary of the wishful thinking that might drive him or her to deny your differences. One of the main reasons that so many relationships fail is that people gloss over these basic dissimilarities because they're so intent on being in a relationship.

It's tragic when an otherwise healthy relationship can't continue because of conflicting relational needs, especially when you've already developed strong feelings for the incompatible partner. So when you add someone's relational needs to your home decor, train your eye to identify which ones complement yours and which don't. It's easy to make a return during the trial period, but if you let incompatible needs settle into your living room and start collecting dust, they'll be so much a part of your life, it will break your heart when you finally have to redecorate your home.


When you and someone else have had conflicting relational needs, what have you done to resolve the differences? If you chose to continue the relationship, were you able to make it work despite the differences?


Fun Link of the Day

Quantifying Relational Needs

Ah, those relational needs. Pesky critters, aren't they?

You think you've found your partner in crime, that guy or gal who finishes your thoughts before you think them, who knows you better than you want to know yourself, who makes you feel like if you could never, ever listen to your iPod or buy new shoes or eat pizza again, it would be okay as long as you were with them. Bliss follows.

And then one day, you crack that trunk of musty old stuff from his or her childhood attic--otherwise known as baggage--and out pop the relational needs. At first you think they'll fit perfectly with yours because they're all, say, living room furnishings. So you take them back to your new place and set them up in the living room with your own relational needs. That's when, to your dismay, you discover that these relational needs clash with yours. They're not the same style, color, size...nothing. You try to dress them up in a fresh coat of paint, change the lighting to give them an air of grace, a certain shabby chic, if you will...but it's still painfully obvious that while all these furnishings belong in a living room, they don't belong in the same living room, together.

That is, you and another person might have certain relational needs in common (eg., a need for excitement and novelty or a need for intellectual conversation), but your slice of that need pie might be a lot bigger or smaller than theirs. To continue with the home decorating metaphor, our needs exist on a spectrum much like the spectrum of color swatches you see when you want to paint your walls. There's not just blue but robin's egg and sky and cobalt and turquoise and aquamarine and periwinkle. It's the same with relational needs. Maybe you and another person have the same need but to differing degrees.

That's why trying to match your needs with someone else's can be like trying to find a stranger whose DNA matches your own. If you can't match your genotype, it really doesn't matter how identical your phenotype appears. In the end, you're incompatible.

Quantitative (as opposed to qualitative) differences can show up with all kinds of needs, but they are, perhaps, most damaging when they involve communicational needs. Communicational needs, I've found, are among the most integral yet variable relational needs. While we can break most people into two qualitative groups of communicators--verbal and nonverbal--within those groups are endless variations in communicational patterns. Think of all those fractal designs a mathematical genius can derive from a single equation. Yeah. Like that.

The problem is that our individual relational needs (and, in this case, our communicational needs) inform our expectations for interaction with others. So when a loved one, even or especially one who has the same qualitative needs, doesn't meet our needs to the degree that we expect, confusion, heartache, and the demise of the relationship ensue.

As an example, some years ago, I dated two men in succession who were, ironically, at opposite ends of the verbal communication spectrum. (Yes, the swing from one end to the other was a wild ride!) While they were both, like me, verbal (as opposed to physical) communicators, the degree to which they desired communication was like night and day.

The first guy–we’ll call him David–wanted a lot of contact, right away. No sooner had we gone on our first date than he was calling me every night and every afternoon at lunch and IMing me whenever he saw me online, too. Well, this was overkill to me. In my mind, it was too early in the relationship for daily chit-chat, and even if our relationship had progressed, I wasn’t sure I’d ever want someone to habitually contact me whenever he had a spare moment. Soon, I was avoiding his calls or excusing myself after five minutes to, you know, take that meeting with Barbara Walters. Eventually, David confronted me, complaining that I didn't like him enough. In fact, I liked David quite a bit. But he and I weren't on the same frequency--literally--with our communicational needs. I just didn't require that much contact, so his need became a burden.

After David, I dated a man we’ll call Evan. Evan and I were together three times as long as I’d been with David and were in a committed relationship, whereas David and I had just been casually dating. Nevertheless, not only did Evan refrain from calling me twice a day, there were quite a few days that he never called at all. Up till that time, I'd never been with anyone who didn't call at least once a day, and his behavior threw me for a loop. I talked to him about it, telling him that I preferred some daily communication, and he nicely but firmly told me that although he loved me, that wasn't the way he operated. While he was happy to see me in person more often, he didn't like conversing on the phone or Internet and had no intention of doing it every day. I tried to content myself with this, but the fact remained that my need was greater than his, so I was dissatisfied right up until we ended our relationship.

Tragically, many otherwise healthy relationships, friendships, and working partnerships unravel due to differing degrees of communicational needs. This is not only because the need itself goes unfulfilled but because we approach our relationships with assumptions based on our needs. For instance, David's assumption was that if a girl liked him, she would want to talk to him two or three times a day like he wanted to talk to her. In contrast, Evan's assumption was that I should know he loved me, whether or not we talked every day, like he knew I loved him. We conduct our relationships based on these highly individualized needs, communicational and otherwise, and then are shocked and dismayed when other people don't share our needs to the same degree. What's worse, we interpret others' behavior in the context of our needs, not theirs. So, continuing with the example of communicational needs, that person who calls us more than we need to call them is deemed "desperate" or "insecure," while the one who doesn't call as much as we'd want is "cold" or "detached."

So is there hope if you and a loved one have different relational needs or the same relational needs in different quantities? Is there any way to break out of the habit of judging others' relational needs by our own? And, more to the point, is it possible to meet someone else's needs and still get our own needs met when those needs are different? Tune in next time to find out!


Have you ever had a relationship, romantic or otherwise, with someone who had similar relational needs but to a different degree than you? What problems did that cause for the two of you? Have you ever judged someone's actions based on your own relational needs and then realized you were wrong?


Fun Link of the Day

I've Got What You Need: Identifying Relational Needs

First off, a big thank you to Singletude readers for your patience during the hardware upgrade. The new computer is settling in and starting to look at home in its surroundings. :)

While searching for some data to support a Singletude post, I stumbled across this web site. Entitled Commitment: Get Married Soon, it’s obviously aimed at single women who are chomping at the bit to cross the marital finish line. Ignore the intended audience for a minute, though, and instead of that bit, chomp on the food for thought in “Lesson One.” The unnamed author’s advice is universal and applies to both sexes, in any kind of relationship–-romantic, platonic, familial, or otherwise.

In case you’re pressed for time, I’ll sum it up: Your love can go deeper than the Titanic, but your relationship isn’t going to be satisfying unless you meet each other’s needs. Yes, I know–cue the Marvin Gaye, massage oil, and a bottle of Chardonnay, right? Okay, we need to be on the same page with those needs, too, but this extends beyond the boudoir.

The article introduces the concept of inherent needs rooted in the variations of personality that make us so fascinating yet incomprehensible to each other. These relational needs, whether biologically based or socialized at an early age, are, nevertheless, undeniable. Examples include the dichotomous needs to be a caretaker or be taken care of, be a leader or be a follower, have a trophy or be a trophy, be distant or be close, and be verbal or be physical. I’m sure there are many more. Some of them are unusual, and many are politically incorrect, but humans didn’t evolve in a court of law.

Not surprisingly, the article contends that the relationships that work best are those in which both parties meet each other’s needs. According to the article, if a fundamental need is unmet for too long, the unfulfilled partner will grow restless and want out.

So, no problem. Just give the person a generous helping of what they need, fill them up on nurture or intellectual stimulation or intimacy and everything will be fine, right?

Of course it’s not that simple. The catch is that what the other person needs has to be something you can and want to give, and vice versa. Not only that, but you also must find the right proportional balance for those needs, which can be very tricky and is, in my opinion, why we so rarely find that perfect fit we call “the one.”

For instance, maybe you’re a woman dating a man with wanderlust. He needs someone who also has restless feet, who knows he’s literally going places and either wants to come along for the ride or is fine holding down the fort till he returns. If you can’t catch his travel bug, if you only tolerate but never really encourage his excursions to remote corners of the world with unpronounceable names, you’re going to run into problems because one of his primary needs in a partner isn’t being met.

Or maybe you’re a man dating a woman who’s organized and likes to plan. She feels more comfortable when she’s the one to arrange your parties, evenings out, and day trips. In this case, you have to be the kind of guy who isn’t interested in the particulars of your leisure time together and would rather someone else take that load off your shoulders. Again, if you secretly resent that she manages your social calendar, your ire is going to smolder till it consumes you both.

To varying degrees, the same bargain is also struck in non-romantic relationships. For example, most of us are familiar with that perennial Hollywood duo, the hero and his sidekick. But that dynamic isn’t confined to the silver screen. Go to any bar on a Saturday night, and you’ll see pairs of friends in which one is a talker, the other a listener; one is outgoing, the other reserved; one is a storyteller, the other cracks the punch lines. Or step into your office, and watch this same give-and-take play out between co-workers or employers and employees. Over here’s the curmudgeonly boss soothed by his sweet, compliant secretary. Over there, Jane and John are assigned to the same project because Jane is the creative visionary and John knows the devil is in the details. These dyads have become stereotypes because they’re based on real interpersonal patterns that arise from relational needs.

A primary reason why we often feel disconnected from each other is that it’s a near miracle to find that needle in a haystack who not only meets your kind of need but does so to the degree that you need it. Next time, Singletude will explore how this seemingly minor issue of degree can make or break a relationship, with special attention to communicational needs.

Do you know what your relational needs are? Have you ever had a relationship, romantic or otherwise, that either worked well or didn’t due to the compatibility of your relational needs? Tell us about it!


Fun Link of the Day

Are Married Couples Happier Than Singles?

Maybe. A little bit. And not in every case.

Confused? Check out "Are Married People Happier Than Unmarried People?" at the American Psychological Association (APA) web site. This 15-year longitudinal study of 24,000 subjects reports that marriage increases life satisfaction...but only about one tenth of a point on an 11-point scale. In addition, most currently married individuals were happier people even before they tied the knot.

Interestingly, the study also found that those who are happiest before marriage have the smallest boost in life satisfaction after the wedding. Although that may seem counterintuitive, the authors concluded that singles who are already content with themselves simply can't get much happier with the addition of one person to the mix.

"An event such as marriage or divorce does not have the same implications for all individuals. A person who is very satisfied with life probably has a rich social network and has less to gain from the companionship of marriage. On the other hand, the person who is lonely and, therefore, somewhat dissatisfied, can gain much by marrying," the researchers explained.

For years, various social organizations have been ramming down our throats that marriage makes people, especially men, happier, so it's refreshing to read some research to the contrary. Of course, one could object that this study was conducted in Germany and isn't applicable to Americans, but 7,000 of the participants were immigrants, so this isn't a culturally limited phenomenon, though it's possible that certain aspects of German government or culture don't reinforce marriage as much as ours do.

In any case, this study is groundbreaking because it's the first I know of to prove that marriage is not a cure-all for social ills. People react differently to nuptial bliss. For some, the wedding bells ring in new heights of happiness. For others, not so much. But at the end of the day, your happiness compass is set where it is, and your contentment level returns to its true north.

That's why it's so important to stop waiting for someone else to make you happy. Take your happiness into your own hands. Have you always wanted to move to California? Have dreams of directing your own film? What are you waiting for? One tenth of a point?

As Bobby McFerrin put it if you're old enough to remember, "Don't worry. Be happy." And you don't need anyone else to do that. I think Bobby knew it, too. He was a one-man band.


In your experience, are married couples happier than singles? If you've ever been married, were you happier married than single? How about unmarried couples? Do you think they're happier than singles? Were you happier when part of a couple? Do you think that being in a relationship or marriage in the future will make you happier than you are now? Why or why not?


Fun Link of the Day

Single and Insecure

Insecurity.

It's why your ex dumped you. It's why you're still single. It's why you're not fabulously wealthy and beautiful and famous, right? You're just insecure. Oprah and Tyra and Dr. Phil say it, so it must be true.

Let's all nod our bobble heads in time now, singles. Repeat after me: "Hi, my name is Scapegoat Single, and I'm INSECURE."

Well, if you're going to be labeled, you might as well embrace it. Let's look up the definition of "insecure," shall we?

insecure (adj.)--lack of confidence or assurance; self-doubt; a feeling of apprehensiveness and uncertainty: lack of assurance or stability; the state of being subject to danger or injury.

Notice this definition doesn't include words like "dependent," "clingy," "whiny," or "controlling." Those words often go hand in hand with the label of insecurity, but as you can see, they're unrelated. Instead, this definition of insecurity suggests a state that one arrives at when the environment is unstable or confusing, leading one to distrust his or her own judgment. Yet every time this word bubbles to the surface of a tumultuous relational brew, it's flung at the guilty party like a character flaw, an ugly wart or mole growing out of a morass of self-hatred.

If you've ever been accused of insecurity, you know that it hurts. And it probably had the miraculous effect of making you...more insecure! But if you've been beating yourself up with a copy of Learning to Love Yourself, STOP. Let me submit to you the possibility that you do love yourself but someone else didn't. Let me go a step further and suggest that someone even recognized this was true and tried to deflect your concern by accusing you of the "I" word.

Now I won't deny that what I'll call "pathological insecurity" exists. The pathologically insecure are those who call their significant others on the hour every hour to make sure they're not shagging random strangers. They're the size 0's who ask you if they look fat and the sulkers who disparage your big bonus because they didn't get one this year. No matter how successful they are, no matter how loved and admired, no matter how honored and decorated, they still look in the mirror and tremble at what they see.

But let's get real. Most people are insecure because they're not size 0 and their honey really did shag a random stranger at that party last year. But you'd better not voice your worries in a culture where self-esteem is more honorable than honor, or you'll have to wear that Scarlet I--Insecure!

As much as we might like to believe that babies are born with pre-made packets of self-esteem that we just need to activate in the microwave, it isn't true. Self-worth is accumulated as we progressively conquer challenges and prove our standing in society. It is, by its very nature, environmentally dependent. The same is true of security. People learn to feel secure by testing the world around them and finding out if it will--no pun intended--support their weight. It doesn't develop in a vacuum; we can't simply conjure it up. It's directly related to how the world responds to us and how we process that response.

Yet as adults, we've become so willing to assume responsibility as reactors while letting the actors off the hook. Does your boyfriend flirt with other women? That's not his problem--you must be insecure. Does your girlfriend constantly disparage your choice of friends and entertainment? Yep, that's because of your insecurity too. Are you concerned that you're not qualified for your job interview? If you just believed in yourself, you'd know that couldn't possibly be true! Did your latest performance get bad reviews? Don't get down on yourself! Sing with me now: "That's insecurity!"

If you've been called insecure in the past, remember that the definition of "insecurity" is "uncertainty" and "lack of assurance." Before accepting the label, ask yourself whether you had something to be uncertain about. Maybe you realistically assessed that your significant other didn't consider you quite so significant anymore and wanted some assurance of his or her feelings. Maybe you weren't confident of your ability to land that job because you had little experience in the industry. Maybe you wondered if people liked you at that dinner because a) you sometimes put your foot in your mouth and b) you're not cocky enough to presume they did.

If you're the accuser, not the accused, be honest with yourself before you toss around that heated word and burn someone badly. Are you using the "I" word to distract someone from a legitimate question you don't want to answer? If someone is asking for encouragement or reassurance, is it possible that you can't give it but don't want to admit it? Or, worse still, you're withholding it because you like to keep them off balance?

While no one wants every conversation to consist of attempts to bolster someone else's self-esteem, let me suggest that we all make an effort to be a little kinder and more complimentary toward each other. If someone wants to know if you really care about him or find her beautiful or think he can tear up a guitar or cook a mean omelet, and you do, it shouldn't be a hardship to tell them again. You should, in fact, delight in telling them because you love them and want them to know it. If you think it's a burden to offer reassurance or praise, then maybe you don't love the person who's asking for it as much as you say you do, or maybe your love is tarnished by a deficit in you, one that can't give praise or secretly exults in someone else's anxiety or pain.

On that note, I'll leave you with one final thought:

Logically, the opposite of "insecure" would be "confident," "self-assured," "certain," and "safe." If you've ever known someone who was confident, self-assured, and certain in all their actions, then I'm sorry that you had the misfortune to be acquainted with them. At the end of the day, there's much to be said for humility and the "insecurity" to know that you're not infallible.


Have you ever been accused of being insecure or accused someone else of insecurity? Do you think insecurity was really the problem, or was it something else? What do you think about the concept of insecurity and how it's used today?


Fun Link of the Day