While all of this is beneficial, there are two general points that I wanted to bring up on the larger subject of money and relationships.  First, I don’t think the details matter that much.  For example, traditionally you get a joint bank account when you marry, but some choose to do it the second they move in together.  Others never take the plunge at all and live the rest of their lives filing separate tax returns.  My cousin, who has been married for twelve years and has three children, only created a joint bank account with his wife last year.

What matters more than the mechanics is the honesty behind the actions.  If you are going to have joint finances, you must be forthright in your financial situation and limitations.  If you are going to have separate accounts, where each person has their own respective contribution to the collective pot, then be true to that commitment.  Too frequently, money matters get in the way of relationship matters, and sometimes they overpower the relationship.  The key to making sure that money doesn’t sully the bed is transparency.

Secondly, and equally as important, is something buried in the first line of the NYT article:

Jennifer and Scott Bartone were married in October after a seven-year courtship. But they did not have a serious conversation about money until this week.

I read this line and I immediately thought to myself:  they are blind to crucial aspects of their partner’s personality.  A person’s relationship with money is an important and unavoidable characteristic.  It is important that you recognize your prospective guy’s rapport with his wallet.  Is he stingy?  Is he generous?  Is he extravagant?  Is he frugal?  There are countless adjectives that one can list, but more importantly, you need to figure out if you are okay with that characteristic.  Maybe you don’t mind an extravagant guy, maybe you do.  What matters is that you recognize the characteristic and the implications of that characteristic on his behavior.

Money and relationships don’t mix well to begin with, so in order to ease over rough patches it is important to remember two things.  First, transparency.  Secondly, know the habits of your partner so there are no surprises.  The rest of it, like choosing which 401K plan works best for you, is easy.

Image via Shovellicious

The post Money and Relationships: A Guy’s Take appeared first on HelloGiggles.

While this is all in good fun, and we fortunately live in a day and age where the sexual liberation of women is finally becoming acceptable, there may be a negative feedback loop to this behavior. Effectively, what you are telling the guy is that you are okay with his casual status. You are justifying his non-committal behavior.

Now, I’m not one to tell anybody what to do with their bodies, and I’m also not here to judge anybody. In fact, I’m all for parity between men and women when it comes to having fun (as long as it is safe, consensual and done in good conscience, of course). But what I do want to say is that it is important to be aware of the fact that sex is just one parameter in the equation that makes up a relationship, and that there may be unforeseen consequences to all of this sexual liberation.

In casual relationships, the sex component is usually much more prominent than in the “classic” notion of relationships. I’m referring to hooking up, of course. If you are in a serious commitment, hooking up is no longer an issue and you take time to foster emotional closeness and support. Even the terminology is different. When it’s casual, you “hook up”; when in a relationship, it’s “being intimate”.

But for all of those reading this who are wondering what will happen to their casual status, here is an idea for you: Take the sex out of the equation. I don’t mean permanently of course. I mean, create a situation where you are hanging out with your casual beau but you don’t spend the night together. See if you are compatible without the sex component a few times. If things go well and he continues to show interest, you can take this as a good sign that there is something deeper between the two of you than just hooking up. If not, then you can probably assume that things will remain in their casual status, and you can choose if you want to continue or not given this new insight.

The reason behind this is that sex can frequently jumble our thinking about our relationships because it is a primal urge and not a rational component of the equation. A bad sexual experience can ruin an otherwise great relationship, and a great sexual experience can make an otherwise crappy relationship drag on for months. So if you take the sex out you can see if the rest is good or not.

Again, it is totally up to you. If you want something casual, go for it, but if you are wondering if it is something more than casual, then try hanging out without having sex to see if your connection to your guy is solid or not.

Thoughts?

Featured image via MySpace

The post Removing Sex From The Equation appeared first on HelloGiggles.

Dear Readers,

Below is an article that I initially wanted to pitch to a few different magazines, but I decided to run it here first for three reasons. First, it is closely related to this series. Second, it is a topic that will resonate with HG readers. Finally, because of the importance of the subject.  

You will note by the style and tone that this is a much more serious posting than what I usually write on HG, but I think it is important to run it in its original format. I promise next time to return to my usual levity.

This is a serious topic, so please be considerate with your comments.

Thanks – y

The abortion debate ebbs and flows in the national media. Sometimes it is prominently featured on front pages; other times it is not mentioned for weeks on end. Recently, pro-lifers have again taken center stage with the enactment of a new bill in Arkansas and the proposed “Heartbeat Bill” in North Dakota. The former will restrict abortion procedures to the twelfth week of pregnancy. The latter, if approved, will go a step further and ban abortions at the sixth week. Roe v. Wade currently refers to “viability of the fetus” regarding abortion, roughly around week 24.

These two victories for the pro-life camp are supported by, and bogged down by, exhaustive debates concerning nuances and jargon. But these circular arguments mask a deeper theoretical issue that should be addressed, one that begins with the term “pro-life” as a reference to abortion in and of itself.

Not so long ago, in the ’50s and ’60s, being “pro-life” was synonymous with the larger Right to Life movement that was central to multiple issues besides abortion, such as capital punishment, euthanasia, infanticide and even childhood poverty. In the late ’60s, various Right to Life groups with a specific focus on abortion began to mobilize and coalesce under the umbrella organization of the National Right to Life Committee, which was formed in 1968. The NRLC was formally incorporated in 1973 as a response to Roe v. Wade, but was still using the appropriate moniker of being “anti-abortion”.

The term “pro-life” emerged in response to widespread national interest following Roe v. Wade. It is unclear whether the term “pro-life” preceded the term “pro-choice” or vice versa, but one thing is certain: both terms were coined with the clear intention of altering public perception through effective PR and branding. In the Encyclopedia for Women in American Politics, authors Jeffrey Schultz and Laura Von Assendelft state that “movement leaders chose the ‘pro-life’ label to put forward a positive image”.

It should come as no surprise that the term “pro-life” emerged from a calculated decision to spin public discourse on the topic of abortion and present anti-abortion groups in a certain way. What could be better than being a proponent for life itself? More importantly, it paints the opposition as “Anti-Life”, cold blooded killers. As Fred Shapiro, editor of the Yale Book of Quotations, stated in 1990: “The truth is that pro-life came first, a clever slogan presenting a negative position in a positive light.”

It took a few years for “pro-life” to catch on – the first journalistic use of the term in reference solely to abortion was in a New York Times article in early 1976 – but the term has stuck around for nearly four decades, skewing the language of the debate. But beyond the obvious PR wordplay, there is a more problematic side to the term “pro-life” with regards to women.

As commonly known, pro-life advocates want to end abortion through governmental action, barring the procedure entirely. Bette Grand, the Republican representative from North Dakota who is behind the “Heartbeat Bill”, stated on her blog: “At what point does the state’s legitimate and compelling interest in protecting the life of the child become stronger than the women’s right to privacy?” In other words, she is saying that women are unable or incapable of being trusted with making the “correct” decision regarding an unborn fetus, and a governing body must step in to make the decision for them. Therefore, the term “pro-life” questions the rational decision-making abilities of women.

The reality is that a woman’s perspective on abortion – for or against – all boils down to choice. Abortion, like school vouchers or same sex marriage, is just one of a slew of cultural issues that individuals make decisions on based on their personal preference. In this vein, abortion typically fits in to larger worldviews that track neatly the easily digestible Left-Right dichotomy of US politics.

The post Abortion, Politics and the Death of “Pro-Life” appeared first on HelloGiggles.

But first, what insecurities to do men have? This probably won’t be a surprise, but male insecurities are pretty much the same as female ones: job/career, physical appearance, the ability to interact with the opposite sex and prowess in the bedroom, just to name a few obvious ones. These insecurities infest the male ego and create a sense of vulnerability, constant comparison to peers, and general malaise. More than that, these insecurities are always there, pulsating in the back of the brain on a daily basis.

These insecurities play out on women in strange ways and to varying degrees. For starters, when you are not enthusiastic about yourself, it is hard to be genuinely enthusiastic for someone else. So if a guy has insecurities that are truly bogging him down, it will be very difficult for him to be supportive of the woman in his life. Also, there is a tendency in men to be more negative about the things that make them the most uncomfortable, like an eye-for-an-eye. For example, if the guy has recently lost a job, or has spent an extended period of time unemployed, then he is probably going to be apathetic or unsupportive of your promotion. Or, if he is fretting about his thinning hair or encroaching belly flab, he may act callously about your new haircut or new shoes.

But sometimes a man’s insecurity can unleash an uglier side as well. He may constantly critique others, including you. He may become overly competitive, almost antagonistic, particularly to those that are succeeding in the areas that make him most insecure. And finally, he may become withdrawn and dejected if his insecurities get the best of him and he feels like there is nothing that he can do well.

So what do you do about this?

Well, there are many options. Typical encouragement and understanding can work. Other times keeping your distance and letting him overcome his difficulty on his own time helps. This is particularly true if the problem has exogenous roots, like finding a job. Sometimes you can lead by example. Go to the gym, do well at your job, whatever it is that makes you feel good about yourself, and he will slowly come around. People want to be around people that inspire them to be better versions of themselves. And still another option is to approach it from the practical perspective. If he is feeling bad about his flab, then make a schedule: On Tuesdays you go work out, on Mondays I go work out. And if things get worse, don’t be shy to suggest looking for outside help. Men frequently are anti-therapists, but talking to a trained professional who is non-judgmental and unrelated to all of his hang-ups can be a huge benefit.

The important part to all of this is that there are many ways to help your man find his self-validation from within, but you must also realize that you can’t “fix” him. He needs to want to make efforts to overcome his insecurity on his own, and the most you can do is guide him.

Robot Comic via Captain Scratchy

The post Male Insecurity and You appeared first on HelloGiggles.

What do the women have to do? Show up. That’s about it.

There are so many standards, both direct and double, that men face when trying to woo women. There are so many rules, both expressed and hidden, that men need to follow in order to not get voted off the first-date island. To many guys, it seems a little unfair that they do all the heavy lifting and women get away with everything. To that, I present some new dating rules for the women out there, which require a little more effort than just showing up. Of course, these rules can be applied to the men out there as well.

1. No texting ’til the third date.

Regardless of how enlightened we are as a dating society, it is still universally accepted that the man must initiate first contact over the phone. Ladies, if a guy calls you and for some reason and you don’t pick up the phone, please don’t respond with a text message. Texting is the ultimate form of non-committal communication. You don’t have to be present to see the other side’s response, you can sit around and compose your response instead of letting your true feelings out, and you don’t even need to form complete sentences. If you are interested, call back. If you aren’t interested, be courteous and call back anyhow.

2. No researching on Facebook or Google before the first date.

I think this happens a lot more than people are willing to admit. First, it’s a little creepy. Secondly, researching potential mates means you meet them armed with preconceived notions based on their online persona. In general, people present themselves in limited capacities online, especially for sites like LinkedIn where everybody is touting their accomplishments. Therefore, if you are trying to glean any information about the person you are trying to date from online sources, odds are very strong that you have a skewed perception of reality, which means that you could be sorely disappointed, or prematurely dismissive of an otherwise great person.

The reality is that this behavior will continue, and that both sexes are equally guilty. Therefore, my suggestion is that you take whatever info you find online with a grain of salt.

3. Parity in paying.

A friend of mine from Atlanta tried to make it as a writer for two years. During that time he worked odd jobs and struggled financially, and also tried to maintain a relationship with a driven career oriented consultant for PWC. They are both wonderful people, but ultimately their relationship faltered and failed because of money issues. In order to impress the consultant, the cash-strapped writer was constantly paying for outings that were simply out of his budget, and the consultant never contributed. In our day and age, I think it is perfectly normal to be upfront with your financial limitations, but also to be understanding of the other’s limitations. Traditionally the guy pays for the first few dates, which is fine, but after that each person should contribute according to their means.

As a side note, never choose to date someone because of how much money they have in the bank. Besides the obvious superficiality, you could be missing out on some quality people.

4. Mention if you are already committed.

Yes, it is fun to get your flirt on. And yes, we all like attention, but if you are in a committed relationship, then find some apropos way to fit it in to the conversation in a polite way. Nobody likes to be led astray.

5. No Googling exes.

This should be a no-brainer, but a disturbingly high amount of women that I spoke with confessed to stalking the interwebs for any information, and ideally photos, of exes. As tempting as it may be, try not to scroll through past Facebook photos to see if one girl reappears for a prolonged period of time. This type of behavior can only lead to unnecessary competition and endless self-conscious comparing, which is no fun for either party.

And finally…

6. No presumptions about intent.

Not every guy is a douchebag, and if someone is being nice or gentlemanly, don’t assume immediately that he is trying to get in your pants. It could be that he genuinely wants to talk to you in order to create a more meaningful impression and actually ask you out on a date, and not directly up to his bedroom. If he just wants sex, there will be plenty of clues, so there is no reason to be presumptuous before he has even tried to talk to you.

Any other new dating rules out there?

(This post was written with generous contribution from my friend, dater, and comedian Benji Lovitt)

Image via CityPages Blog

The post New Dating Rules: A Man’s Perspective appeared first on HelloGiggles.

While divorce is always difficult, Frankel and Hoppy are public personas, which means that every detail of their divorce is available for mass consumption. So when Frankel listed out the reasons behind their separation, she exposed their ills to the whole world.

Frankel cited “money, family, and gender roles” as the reasons for their separation. Money I understand, as it frequently causes friction in a relationship. Family as well can be troublesome. But Gender Roles? I have never heard this mentioned before as a reason for divorce. Usually it’s infidelity, lack of communication, or irreconcilable differences.

I wanted to explore the subject of Gender Roles in relationship, in general terms and then with regards to Frankel-Hoppy specifically. I think that gender roles have two key components. First, there is the practical day-to-day level, and secondly there is the philosophical level.

General roles when applied to daily life still have clear delineations, even in our enlightened day and age. Numerous studies have found that for the most part, women do cleaning, cooking, and child rearing while men don’t, even in the most egalitarian dual-income households. There is no clear consensus on why this still exists. Some experts say lingering sociological/cultural traits. Others say biological/genetic predispositions. And most say that media images only perpetuate the differences.

I propose a different approach, one espoused by recent theories from the world of economics. Think of your entire household as one closed economy. List out everything that needs to happen to maintain your household for a month and the time it takes to do it; from cleaning dishes and grocery shopping all the way through mowing the lawn and cleaning the gutters. Economic theory states that whoever has a strict comparative advantage in one activity should strictly do that activity for the good of overall efficiency. If one partner can do dishes in ten minutes and the other in twenty, whoever does it faster should do it always in order to free up the other partner to do tasks that he/she is better at.

In this vein, it doesn’t matter what the actual chore is. If the male is better at dishes, then he should strictly do dishes. If the female is better at taking out the trash, then she should strictly do that. What is important, is that on the aggregate each partner contributes the same amount of time and effort, regardless of the specific chore. There is one caveat, of course. In order to figure out how to divide labor, the guy should vacuum and do laundry to see if he is better at it. And you ladies reading this should try your hand at building Ikea furniture and changing the oil in the car.

For Frankel and Hoppy, I believe the practical component of gender roles is irrelevant. They have enough notoriety and cash (her dubious SkinnyGirl Cocktail line was recently bought for $8.1M) to buy people who will take care of all the nuisances that normal people face. There is no doubt in my mind that the two of them have a full-time staff of babysitters, housekeepers, personal shoppers, and cooks to ensure that they never have to deal with the reality of division of labor. Therefore, in order to examine what Frankel means by “Gender Roles”, we need to look at the philosophical implications.

The ideology of gender roles is fairly obvious: men are the bread winners and go to work, while women stay at home and manage the house and the kids. Think Pete Campbell and his wife Trudy from Mad Men. These anachronistic views have largely dissipated in the Western World because of gender equality in education and the workplace, but also out of necessity. In our day and age, it is extremely difficult for the Middle Class to subsist and thrive on one income, meaning that both partners have to be gainfully employed in order to afford mortgage, childcare, etc. Therefore, lingering beliefs about gender roles in relationships is not only puritanical, but also impractical.

For Frankel and Hoppy, though, this seems to be a key issue. Sources (here and here) mention Hoppy’s feelings of emasculation in the marriage.  Frankel paid the bill for everything, and Hoppy couldn’t deal with being married to a strong woman. “As a man, I never thought I’d be in a situation where my wife, financially, was this successful,” Hoppy, who is in real estate, admitted on Bethenny Ever After. 

To all of this, I officially call Shenanigans on Hoppy. It’s one thing if Frankel’s career ambitions leave her absent from home life, but Hoppy doesn’t seem to have a problem with this. He could happily have spent his days spending his wife’s money at the clubs or on vacation like Scott Disick, but instead he chose to wallow in his antiquated view of the world. Just like his ex, Hoppy could have capitalized on his reality TV stardom to build his fame and fortune, but he whined and complained about her success instead.

Even though we will never know what really happened between Frankel and Hoppy, my guess is that there is something deeper than gender roles. Hoppy’s feelings of emasculation may stem from his insecurity about himself and his manhood in a relationship, which could be the root of much of their conflict. Or, it could be that Hoppy just wants his old life back of hitting on twenty year-olds in Lower Manhattan lounges. He, himself allegedly said:  “My balls [were] cut off two years ago,” in 2010. Well, guess what, life changes when you enter into a committed relationship, and it changes even more when you have a child. So either grow up and accept the responsibility, or don’t get into it in the first place.

For the rest of us in the proletariat, yes, there will be gender differences in the day-to-day life of relationships, but you should try to look at them holistically and even economically, and try to find a balance where each partner contributes an equal share to the total, regardless of individual tasks.  And from a philosophical perspective, if some guy insinuates that women should be confined to the kitchen, think twice about whether this type of Mad Men-lifestyle matches your view of the world before you get serious with him.

Thoughts?

Pete and Trudy image via Entertaining Views from Cinti

Bethenny and Jason image via Life and Style Mag

The post Gender Roles In Relationships: The Bethenny Frankel Divorce Edition appeared first on HelloGiggles.

I wanted to share my thoughts on this topic for two reasons. First, there is a deeper component to this that should be mentioned. Secondly, I found the article to be not only trite, but also patronizing and overly-subjective. Also, on a personal level, the Observer is well known to cater to a certain class of Manhattan elitists, so when they publish articles like this, I think it is important to call them out, or at least offer a thoughtful rebuttal.

I tried to find some anecdotal background on the topic, and there are countless articles and blogs that mention some interesting idiosyncrasies in dating Non-American. (You can even watch Emma Watson give her two cents about it here.) First, almost everybody agrees that Non-Americans dress better, but more importantly, Non-American men are seen as more communicative, appreciative, and affectionate than their American counterparts.

In addition, apparently only Americans like to “date around”. In Europe, as in Asia, once there is mutual romantic interest between a man and a woman, they are deemed Boyfriend-Girlfriend. In the US, men will spread their romantic interest across multiple channels, slowly weaning away the options until they find one that they think worthy enough to have “the conversation” with. Almost like choosing a major between your freshman and sophomore years.

But, (there is always a But), non-Americans are looser when it comes to philandering. While they are monogamous in their romantic interest, they are polygamous in their sexual interests, and romantic solidarity does not necessarily imply sexual exclusivity. This goes for the women as well, BTW. In other words, non-Americans show a greater inclination to separate purely sexual interests from the relationship, whereas Americans relationships monopolize both sexual and romantic desires.

Let’s take this a step further and look at it from the academic perspective. Multiple papers come to the same conclusion: Even though there is superficial interest in dating foreigners, there is an underlying subconscious preference that pushes you to date someone of similar of a similar cultural or ethnic background. An interesting article by Fisman, Iyengar, Kamenica, and Simonson summarizes this point nicely:

“We are able to document convincingly that same-race pairings are the result of preferences rather than exposure to dating opportunities”

In other words, if some woman is on her Junior Year Abroad in Barcelona, odds are very strong that she will end up pairing with another American because of underlying preference, even though she is entirely surrounded by available Spaniards.

What does this all mean?

First, it means that the premise for the Observer article is an isolated example and should be taken with a grain of salt. But more importantly, it means that the undesirable qualities of dating Modern American Men are a mirror image of dating Modern American Females. American guys date around and are less attentive and affectionate, but so are the women! And like attracts like!

And here is the harsh reality: If you are trying to find a guy who is more attentive, more willing to commit, and more communicative about a relationship, you should consider your own actions and ask yourself if you are acting in the same undesirable way as the average guy. It sounds a bit callous, but if you interpret the research, the annoying dating habits of the Modern American Male are simply a mirror image of the Modern American Female, and the only way to avoid these habits is to break the cycle entirely.

Incidentally, there are tons of articles about the reverse effect: American men talking about their interest in Non-American women for various reasons. You can Google it yourself and come to the same conclusions.

Thoughts?

Hugh Grant image via Geek Tyrant

The post Dating Non-Americans: Pros And Cons appeared first on HelloGiggles.

For example, the move from casual dating to exclusive dating usually involves some conversation about monogamy and future intentions. But many young couples today ignore this step, either choosing to avoid the conversation, or assuming it is implied after a set period of appropriate time. As another example, consider how couples spend more and more nights together, until one day you wake up and realize that most of your stuff is at your partner’s place and that you haven’t seen your roommate in weeks.

The article adds that these sliding situations present a lot of risk because there is never a point where you stop and ask yourself, “Is this what I really want?” You’ve sunk so much time and effort in the relationship that it makes it difficult to extract yourself from the situation. Additionally, there is a distinct asymmetry. Men see sliding as a way to postpone actual commitment and test the relationship. Women see it as a progressive move toward marriage.

In the worst case, you end up in a relationship based on ambiguity and convenience, as opposed to clearly defined intent and emotional connection. As the article points out, the real danger in “sliding” into a relationship is that you will always wonder if you made a conscious choice for a partner, or if you’re just settling because you invested so much of yourself. Plus, you never really know your partner’s true intentions.

I wanted to add some insight into this topic. First, and frankly, sliding relationships are probably preferred by the Modern American Male. It gives the guy tons of freedom, little tangible commitment, every opportunity to try to upgrade, and a great exit strategy. This is especially true in the early stages of the relationship. After three or four months, you could be spending every other night at his house, but effectively you aren’t his “girlfriend” since you never made a point to have a conversation defining your status. So technically (the Modern American Male loves technicalities), he is free to roam to greener pastures. As are you, of course.

Secondly, I think women are equally culpable. I think many women enable this flighty behavior in men. Maybe they fear that having a serious conversation about intent will frighten the guy. Maybe they think that by playing it cool and casual it maintains the guy’s interest. Maybe it is something else entirely. (Any readers out there have some theories?) But, for whatever reason, I have started to notice that women largely don’t speak up for their own interest, and therefore allow “sliding” to occur, even though deep down they feel uncomfortable with the situation. The NYT article gives a wonderful example of this.

In summary, while men arguably prefer being in sliding relationships, it is the women who allow it to happen. Therefore, you need to make a stand for your interests in a relationship. It is important to vocalize your intentions and expectations from time to time as a relationship develops. If you have questions about where your relationships is headed, make sure you ask, otherwise you could find yourself in a downward spiral. And ultimately, if you aren’t satisfied with the answers, it is much better to find out sooner rather than later, after you have committed so much of your time and energy into a dead shark.

Thoughts?

Image via CrossCulture

The post Are You In A Sliding Relationship? appeared first on HelloGiggles.