Emotional Navigation

What is the difference between dating today and once upon a time? One major word, FEELINGS. "I don't feel he/she is for me."

Who today can claim that they understand, let alone, know how to manage their feelings, especially at the prime younger "feeling" ages? What is causing so MANY feelings?

IMHO it is quite simple. There is nothing in the brain that understands the REASON WHY to get married. Once upon a time there was basically one reason. Today there is not one reason but many. Which to me equals to NO reason, therefore Many feelings, therefore confusion, therefore today's dating scene.

Gender Differences

The following comments are those of Bill Hall who is a syndicated humor columnist for the Lewiston Morning Tribune in Lewiston, Idaho.

Gender Differences: Consider bathing, for instance. As a general rule, middle-aged women take baths at night. The men shower each morning. The men like to go to bed dirty and go to work clean. Women prefer to go to bed clean and to work dirty. That's why men usually take their coffee breaks with other men.

Women read more boring magazines than men. They read silly, pedestrian magazines filled with articles on making quilts, turning bleach bottles into stunning centerpieces, the use of orange eyeshadow and how to get men to shower before going to bed instead of before going to work.

Men read sensible, intellectual journals on how to catch fish and kill little animals.

When a man cooks, he keeps his knives sharp. Most female cooks don't. Indeed, most female cooks don't even own a decent kitchen knife, let alone a sharp one.

Female cooks offer the excuse that they would cut themselves if they had a sharp knife. And anyone with knives that lousy probably would.

There is another difference between male and female cooks. Female cooks generally cook better with dull knives than male cooks do with sharp knives. That's how infuriating female cooks can be.

Most women in my age group wear dresses occasionally. Only a few of my male friends do and then only in the privacy of their own homes.

The women hobble around on high-heeled shoes. Most men would ever do anything that silly. In fact, there is a name for the kind of men who wear high heels. They are called cowboys.

Women laugh at men for wearing neckties and coats on 100-degree summer days. They snicker at men for wearing more clothes than necessary in hot weather. However, the women who do that are sweating in their pantyhose.

Most women in my age group wear make-up. Very few of the men do. There is a name for men who wear make-up. They are called weird cowboys.

Women are far more likely to be lousy tippers in restaurants, and to complain thereafter that men always get better service than they do.

Women fold their underwear. Most men merely stuff their underwear into the drawer. Men use the time they save to catch fish and kill little animals.

Most women, when lost, will stop and ask directions. Most men in my age group believe admitting you're lost will cast doubt on your manhood. That's why so many macho men are lost. Smarter men prove their manhood by stopping and asking women for directions, even when they aren't lost.

There is another big difference between men and women in my age group. A competent man tends to rise through the ranks so easily that he eventually reaches a level where he is incompetent. Dr. Laurence J. Peter has dubbed this process the Peter Principle.

Women in my age group tend to be held below the level of their competence, making them embarrassing to work with because they tend to outshine male colleagues at the same level.

This is known as the Pain-in-the-Neck Principle. Incompetent men who have been subjected to that humiliation retaliate by refusing to promote women. And rightly so. You don't want people in the board room who don't shower each morning.

Dating fortune cookies, movies, sites and games

The 3 S's and the 3 B's

When a woman gets married, she wants the 3 S's: sensitivity,
sincerity, and sharing. What does she get?

The 3 B's: burps, body odor, and beer breath.

Wife or whore?

Money
The Economics Of Prostitution
Michael Noer, 02.14.06, 12:00 PM ET

Wife or whore?

The choice is that simple. At least according to economists Lena Edlund and Evelyn Korn, it is.

The two well-respected economists created a minor stir in academic circles a few years back when they published "A Theory of Prostitution" in the Journal of Political Economy. The paper was remarkable not only for being accepted by a major journal but also because it considered wives and whores as economic "goods" that can be substituted for each other. Men buy, women sell.

Economists have been equating money and marriage ever since Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker published his seminal paper "A Theory of Marriage" in two parts in 1973 and 1974--also, not coincidentally, in the Journal of Political Economy.



Becker used market analysis to tackle the questions of whom, when and why we marry. His conclusions? Mate selection is a market, and marriages occur only if they are profitable for both parties involved.

Becker allowed nonmonetary elements, like romantic love and companionship, to be entered into courtship's profit and loss statement. And children, in particular, were important. "Sexual gratification, cleaning, feeding and other services can be purchased, but not children: Both the man and the woman are required to produce their own children and perhaps to raise them," he wrote.

But back to whores: Edlund and Korn admit that spouses and streetwalkers aren't exactly alike. Wives, in truth, are superior to whores in the economist's sense of being a good whose consumption increases as income rises--like fine wine. This may explain why prostitution is less common in wealthier countries. But the implication remains that wives and whores are--if not exactly like Coke and Pepsi--something akin to champagne and beer. The same sort of thing.

As with Becker, a key differentiator in Edlund and Korn's model is reproductive sex. Wives can offer it, whores can not.

To be fair, Edlund and Korn were merely building an admittedly grossly simplified model of human behavior in an attempt to answer a nagging question: Why do hookers make so much money? Prostitution is, seemingly, a low-skill but high-pay profession with few upfront costs, micro-miniskirts and stiletto heels aside.

Yet according to data assembled from a wide variety of times and places, ranging from mid-15th-century France to Malaysia of the late 1990s, prostitutes make more money--in some cases, a lot more money--than do working girls who, well, work for a living. This held true even for places where prostitution is legal and relatively safe. In short, streetwalkers aren't necessarily being paid more for their increased risk of going to jail or the hospital.

Notwithstanding Jerry Hall's quip when she was married to Mick Jagger, about being "a maid in the living room and a whore in the bedroom," one normally cannot be both a wife and a whore. "Combine this with the fact that marriage can be an important source of income for women, and it follows that prostitution must pay better than other jobs to compensate for the opportunity cost of forgone-marriage market earnings," Edlund and Korn conclude.

Ouch.

Another zinger: "This begs the question of why married men go to prostitutes (rather than buying from their wives, who presumably will be low-cost providers, considering that they can sell nonreproductive sex without compromising their marriage)." Guys, nothing says "Happy Valentine's Day" more than "low-cost provider."

Of course, it's easy to pour cold water on some of the assumptions made in Edlund and Korn's mathematical model. But these so-called "stylized facts" are supposed to predict human behavior; they don't necessarily pretend to mirror it.

In particular, the assumption that there is no "third way" between wife and whore is problematic, if not outright offensive: "The third alternative, working in a regular job but not marrying, can be ruled out, since we assume that the only downside of marriage for a woman is the forgone opportunity for prostitution."

Be sure to let all your married friends know what they're missing.

Also, the emphasis on the utility of children is puzzling. In most Western democracies, fertility rates have plummeted as wealth has increased. Empirically, men not only buy fewer whores as they get richer, but they have fewer children.

Still, the economic analysis of marriage explains one age-old phenomenon: gold digging.

"In particular, does our analysis justify the popular belief that more beautiful, charming and talented women tend to marry wealthier and more successful men?" wrote Becker. His answer: "A positive sorting of nonmarket traits with nonhuman wealth always, and with earnings power, usually, maximizes commodity output over all marriages."

In other words, yes, supermodels do prefer aging billionaires. And Gary Becker proved it mathematically decades before The Donald married Melania.

Sign seen in a small restaurant:

Sign seen in a small restaurant:

Thanks for visiting. If you liked the food, send your friends.
Otherwise, send your mother-in-law.

How much playing is going on?

How much playing is going on? Who is really playing who? Has dating become a game?

The "15 Minutes" debate

This was printed in the Jewish Press last week on Page F2

Marital Intimacy/Sholom Bayis - A Male Opinion
Dear Rachel,
Recently, my wife came home from a sholom bayis shiur all a-glow. The rebbetzin giving the shiur had offered a piece of advice that was sure to bring marital bliss, and my wife was determined to try it. "Fifteen minutes..." the rebbetzin advised, "No matter how hectic your day, make sure that your husband and you have a 15 minute talk to reconnect." Now, I haven't actually spoken to the husbands of the other wives at that shiur but I assume that most of them had the same reaction as I did upon hearing this sage advice. My reaction was "Hogwash!"

Of course I am not saying that this is a waste of time. What I am saying is that every sholom bayis lecture clearly sides with the emotional needs of the woman over the physical needs of the man.

Philosophically speaking, we need to assume that both man and woman were created equal - as well as different from each other. I think it would be safe to say that most women find love emotionally. They love to have their husbands pay attention to them and to what they have on their minds. This is how they connect with their spouses. I think it would also be safe to say that most men find love in the act of marital intimacy, and this is how they chiefly connect with their spouses.

If this is how we men were created, then why is it that women constantly denigrate us men by saying "Oh, that's all you ever think about." Why are our needs any less important than theirs? Why is our need to connect and love treated as inferior? Why is it ignored in every sholom bayis lecture?!

If a marriage is supposed to be 50/50, then logically it would follow that what this rebbetzin should have told my wife is, "For two weeks a month you should set aside 15-30 minutes every night to talk, and for two weeks a month you should set aside the same amount of time and energy for intimacy." She also should have said, "Just as it upsets us women when men are distracted while we are talking to them, it also upsets men when we are distracted in the bedroom."

Now I really don't want to get into the discussion about "well, maybe your wife is too tired, etc.", because I do help around the house and with the kids. But even if I didn't, my point would still be valid - no sholom bayis lecture ever deemed my tiredness from a day of work as an excuse to skip out on a talk with my wife. Shouldn't every woman who uses the "I'm too tired" as a copout feel guilty about ignoring the emotional needs of her husband?

Since that speech, I would say that our sholom bayis has actually gotten worse. Now when I miss a night of talking with my wife, I get lectured about how I am ignoring her. How is it that the same woman who doesn't let me miss a night of connecting with her can easily go ten days without connecting with me? How can she not see the hypocrisy?

In a nutshell, Rachel, if women truly want sholom bayis, they need to view intimacy as "talking" for men. If they'd offer it to us without making us plead, then so much friction between spouses would dissolve. If women are attentive to us in the bedroom, they will truly find us to be more attentive to them when they need it most. And if some rebbetzin would actually verbalize this in a lecture, men across the world could finally stop beating their heads against the wall. Feels like I've been talking to a brick wall for 10 years

Dear Feels,
Your reasoning is logical. The fact is, emotion escapes logic - as in, "You took it the wrong way..." "I didn't mean it the way it sounded...""Why the tears?!" So you see, while your formula seems fair and sensible on paper, trying to enforce it may be something else entirely.
The hard reality is - making a marriage work is a struggle, a true labor of love. All of life, in fact, is about working our way through muddles and hurdles and coming out on top despite the stumbling blocks that test our mettle. And when we do get there, how much sweeter it is than had it come easy.
Lets tell it like it is: there is much to be said for the art of communication, both of the verbal and sensual kind. But you're right - there's a right time for everything. If spouses would strive to be more understanding of one another and to recognize that personalities vary and temperaments, moods and hormones fluctuate, dependent on a host of circumstances, arguments and slights would be greatly diminished and peace and calm would more likely prevail.
The trick is to always strive to "give" to one's other half, rather than to "take." With apologies to JFK, ask not what your spouse can do for you but what you can do for your spouse, and you may be most pleasantly startled to witness the most crucial friendship of your life bloom
Thank you for submitting your thought-provoking and well-expressed sentiments.

It is kind of amazing that this stuff is finally being printed. Bottom line, IMHO, maybe some day soon, magic will happen and people will realize marriage is not a fairy tale?

Women: Do you think you can change a man?

This has been debated endlessly. Here is some more food for thought.

DON'T SEND YOUR DUCKS TO EAGLE SCHOOL by Jim Rohn
(Excerpted from Leading an Inspired Life)

The first rule of management is this: don't send your ducks to eagle school. Why? Because it won't work. Good people are found not changed. They can change themselves, but you can't change them. You want good people, you have to find them. If you want motivated people, you have to find them, not motivate them.

I picked up a magazine not long ago in New York that had a full-page ad in it for a hotel chain. The first line of the ad read, "We do not teach our people to be nice." Now that got my attention. The second line said, "We hire nice people." I thought, "What a clever shortcut!"

Motivation is a mystery. Why are some people motivated and some are not? Why does one salesperson see his first prospect at seven in the morning while the other sees his first prospect at eleven in the morning? Why would one start at seven and the other start at eleven? I don't know. Call it "mysteries of the mind."

I give lectures to a thousand people at a time. One walks out and says, 'I'm going to change my life." Another walks out with a yawn and says, "I've heard all this stuff before." Why is that?

The wealthy man says to a thousand people, "I read this book, and it started me on the road to wealth." Guess how many of the thousand go out and get the book? Answer: very few. Isn't that incredible? Why wouldn't everyone go get the book? Mysteries of the mind...

To one person, you have to say, "You'd better slow down. You can't work that many hours, do that many things, go, go, go. You're going to have a heart attack and die." And to another person, you have to say, "When are you going to get off the couch?" What is the difference? Why wouldn't everyone strive to be wealthy and happy?

Chalk it up to mysteries of the mind, and don't waste your time trying to turn ducks into eagles. Hire people who already have the motivation and drive to be eagles and then just let them soar

HOW TO SPEAK AND BE POLITICALLY CORRECT:

Due to the climate of political correctness now pervading America, Kentuckians, Tennesseans and West Virginians will no longer be referred to as "HILLBILLIES."
You must now refer to them as APPALACHIAN-AMERICANS.

And furthermore ....

HOW TO SPEAK ABOUT WOMEN AND BE POLITICALLY CORRECT:

1. She is not a "BABE" or a "CHICK" - She is a "BREASTED AMERICAN."
2. She is not a "SCREAMER" or a "MOANER" - She is "VOCALLY APPRECIATIVE."
3. She is not "EASY" - She is "HORIZONTALLY ACCESSIBLE."
4. She is not a "DUMB BLONDE" - She is a "LIGHT-HAIRED DETOUR OFF THE INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY."
5. She has not "BEEN AROUND" - She is a "PREVIOUSLY-ENJOYED COMPANION."
6. She is not an "AIRHEAD" - She is "REALITY IMPAIRED."
7. She does not get "DRUNK" or "TIPSY" - She gets "CHEMICALLY INCONVENIENCED"
8. She does not have "BREAST IMPLANTS" - She is "MEDICALLY ENHANCED."
9. She does not "NAG" you - She becomes "VERBALLY REPETITIVE."
10. She is not a "TRAMP" - She is "SEXUALLY EXTROVERTED."
11. She does not have "MAJOR LEAGUE HOOTERS" - She is "PECTORALLY SUPERIOR."
12. She is not a "TWO-BIT HOOKER" - She is a "LOW COST PROVIDER."

HOW TO SPEAK ABOUT MEN AND BE POLITICALLY CORRECT:

1. He does not have a "BEER GUT" - He has developed a "LIQUID GRAIN STORAGE FACILITY."
2. He is not a "BAD DANCER" - He is "OVERLY CAUCASIAN."
3. He does not "GET LOST ALL THE TIME" - He "INVESTIGATES ALTERNATIVE DESTINATIONS."
4. He is not "BALDING" - He is in "FOLLICLE REGRESSION."
5. He is not a "CRADLE ROBBER" - He prefers "GENERATIONAL DIFFERENTIAL RELATIONSHIPS."
6. He does not get "FALLING-DOWN DRUNK" - He becomes "ACCIDENTALLY HORIZONTAL."
7. He does not act like a "TOTAL ASS" - He develops a case of RECTAL-CRANIAL INVERSION."
8. He is not a "MALE CHAUVINIST PIG" - He has "SWINE EMPATHY."
9. He is not afraid of "COMMITMENT" - He is "RELATIONSHIP CHALLENGED."
10. He is not "HORNY" - He is "SEXUALLY FOCUSED."
11. It's not his "CRACK" you see hanging out of his pants - It's "REAR CLEAVAGE

The Birth Order Of Children

Your Clothes:

a.. 1st baby: You begin wearing maternity clothes as soon as your OB/GYN confirms your pregnancy.
b.. 2nd baby: You wear your regular clothes for as long as possible.
c.. 3rd baby: Your maternity clothes ARE your regular clothes.

Preparing for the Birth:
a.. 1st baby: You practice your breathing religiously.
b.. 2nd baby: You don't bother because you remember that last time, breathing didn't do a thing.
c.. 3rd baby: You ask for an epidural in your eighth month.

The Layette:
a.. 1st baby: You pre-wash newborn's clothes, color-coordinate them, and fold them neatly in the baby's little bureau.
b.. 2nd baby: You check to make sure that the clothes are clean and discard only the ones with the darkest stains.
c.. 3rd baby: Boys can wear pink, can't they?

Worries:
a.. 1st baby: At the first sign of distress--a whimper, a frown--you pick up the baby.
b.. 2nd baby: You pick the baby up when his/her wails threaten to wake your firstborn.
c.. 3rd baby: You teach your three-year-old how to rewind the mechanical swing.

Pacifier:
a.. 1st baby: If the pacifier falls on the floor, you put it away until you can go home and wash and boil it.
b.. 2nd baby: When the pacifier falls on the floor, you squirt it off with some juice from the baby's bottle.
c.. 3rd baby: You wipe it off on your shirt and pop it back in.

Diapering:
a.. 1st baby: You change your baby's diapers every hour, whether they need it or not.
b.. 2nd baby: You change their diaper every two to three hours, if needed.
c.. 3rd baby: You try to change their diaper before others start to complain about the smell or you see it sagging to their knees.

Activities:
a.. 1st baby: You take your infant to Baby Gymnastics, Baby Swing, and Baby Story Hour.
b.. 2nd baby: You take your infant to Baby Gymnastics.
c.. 3rd baby: You take your infant to the supermarket and the dry cleaner.

Going Out:
a.. 1st baby: The first time you leave your baby with a sitter, you call home five times.
b.. 2nd baby: Just before you walk out the door, you remember to leave a number where you can be reached.
c.. 3rd baby: You leave instructions for the sitter to call only if she sees blood.

At Home:
a.. 1st baby: You spend a good bit of every day just gazing at the baby.
b.. 2nd baby: You spend a bit of everyday watching to be sure your older child isn't squeezing, poking, or hitting the baby.
c.. 3rd baby: You spend a little bit of every day hiding from the children.

Swallowing Coins:
a.. 1st child: When first child swallows a coin, you rush the child to the hospital and demand x-rays.
b.. 2nd child: When second child swallows a coin, you carefully watch for the coin to pass.
c.. 3rd child: When third child swallows a coin you deduct it from his allowance!!


GRANDCHILDREN: ...G-d's reward for allowing your children to live

Why Men Dump Women

Got this article, written by a woman. Do any men disagree?

Why Men Dump Women By Laura Snyder

They sure have enough excuses - "I need more space," "I think we'd be better off as friends," - but what are the real reasons men leave their ladies? We get behind the old saw, "It's not you, it's me," to find out.

The Thrill is Gone
Oh, he won't admit it's the whole reason, but it may well be. When he starts feeling like he's seen your whole bag of sexual tricks, or you're not that mysterious, glamorous creature you were when you started dating, he starts getting the itch to get out. Some men get far too caught up in the fantasy thing. Once that mystery and enchantment is gone - oh, say, about the time you ask him to pick up some tampons for you at the store - he will be, too.

You've Changed
Shallow? Uh-huh, but it's true: if you've stopped taking care of your appearance once you've got him hooked, he'll use that as a reason to bail. (Incidentally, he's more likely to stick it out if he's let himself go, too).

You Tried to Change Him
It's practically a cliché by now, how women fall for the "bad boy" with the mistaken assumption that they can remake him into the man of their dreams. It's dangerous enough even to try. But if you actually succeed, you can start counting the minutes until he cuts the cord. In an effort to get back to being that free spirit he once was, he'll change his surroundings - starting with you.

He Can't Breathe
Sure, he loves attention, but if your adoration starts feeling suffocating, he'll bolt. Ditto if your union is marked with too many quarrels, too much jealousy, or your unabating need for his reassurance of how special you are, how solid your relationship is, and how much you can trust him.

You're Not His Ideal
He went into your relationship with an unrealistic idea of who you were and what kind of couple the two of you would be. Now that he's realized you're not perfect (!), he's going to look for someone who is. Wish him luck.

IMHO, all of the above is testament that if the purpose of marriage is just for the physical intimacy it will not last! It also,IMHO, is an indication that sex before marriage will most of time mislead people to the true reason and purpose of marriage.

The true reason why dating and marriage are impossible today

Once upon a time (whenever) marriage was more about giving whereas now it is more about getting. It is getting to a point where it is all about getting, "what can you offer/give me?".

I love this cartoon which captures the complete picture. : )

This is the one of the best pictures I can relate to anyone dating out there and to what we matchmakers are up against.

Let's meet in a secret place