Letters to the Editor
Amerigo
Published Letters: 955 Editor's Choice: 60
-
It just depends...
[Read the article: If the first date isn't great, why go out with him again? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... on who you are.
This is an interesting question, and my initial response was to say well, hell, yes, if you don't spark by the end of a first date, then there is definitely no chance.
But why did I respond this way. I think that those of us who work in areas like health care and human services, sales, writing and reporting etc. are quite used to meeting people, interviewing them, assessing them, and probably planning the rest of their life too before we go on a coffee break, would think that one date was quite enough.
We are the type of people who almost always become lovers on the first date when we meet someone who is worthy of our lust and think nothing of it.
Then there are the people whose human relations skills are much less developed. They are not used to taking the lead in an interview situation, structuring discussion so as to quickly find out the salient facts about an individual, finding out what makes them tick.
I'm not quite sure which category the LW falls into. Is she a good assessor who is just meeting poor candidates, or is she inhibited and overly picky, thus ruling out perfectly viable men as potential partners for some reason best known to her?
It could be either.
And what is chemistry, what is sexual attraction, and are they the same thing?
I think that attraction can be based either on clear cut physical attractiveness or on attraction to the personality of the individual, or on mutuality. The more another person is attracted to us, the more we are attracted to them. Our selection standards also depend on how desperate we are at the time, and on the availability of other potential partners.
I have led a rather promiscuous life and have had partners who fell into all categories. The most viable ones are those who combine sexually attractive looks and a loveable personality, but there is never any guarantee they will stay that way once they are exposed to us for prolonged periods.
-
LW letter redux
[Read the article: If the first date isn't great, why go out with him again? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Here is a line from the LW's letter that troubles me:
So I go out with a guy, and I try to imagine kissing him or holding his hand or touching his shoulders or relaxing on the sofa with a video and popcorn with him.
Why does this trouble me? Because to me, as a guy, this sounds like being put in captivity. What could be more boring (to me) than watching a video, something I almost never do, and eating popcorn, something I categorically never do and never will do, though I have eaten a few mouthfuls in the past, so I know what it is like.
OK, I am exaggerating for effect and picking unfairly on the LW for choosing a cliched image of domestic bliss.
But does the LW know what she wants? If she is looking for a man who is sexually attractive, then surely that is easy enough to determine on a first date. You meet him, you talk to him and you think, yes, I could do him, or, no, I don't think so.
It is very easy to find a compatible sex partner, because sex is something that nearly all humans enjoy and try to develop skills in--some better than others, for sure.
Or she is looking for a life partner, co-parent and mortgage payer, someone reliable to grow old with who will one day have a pension?
This is actually much harder to find.
Or is she looking for a combination of both, the prince on a white horse who awakens the sleeping princess who has been placed under a spell by a wicked fairy in which she pricks her finger with a spindle and sleeps for a hundred years, then wakes up and fingers his pr..., oh never mind.
If the latter is what she is looking for, how realistic is this? Not very, methinks.
What she does not seem to be looking for is someone who is his own person, has his own hopes and fears and emotions.
Probably I am reading too much into this. I guess the letter is just something that the LW has dashed off, but I do think she ought to be asked to challenge some of her assumptions.
Maybe this is exactly what Cary is saying.
-
A quiet night at home
[Read the article: If the first date isn't great, why go out with him again? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Perhaps it's because one of our favourite moments (my husband agrees) is sitting in front of the TV with a good movie after the kids have gone down... He'd drink a whole bottle of wine and I'd have a smoke. I thought it was a lovely image of two people feeling very comfortable and loving with each other.
Yes, I know I am just a curmudgeon, but you are presenting an image of two people becoming chemically obliterated together as some kind of domestic ideal?
I'm afraid I don't really believe in "romantic" love, leaning to the view that it is just a combination of liking someone and having a sexual relationship. I have not read that Men/Women Mars/Venus book, but I do think that a lot of problems in relationships stem from mismatched expectations between men and women.
My view is that relationships tend to work better when men and women have clearly defined roles and spheres of influence and are not constantly asking each other "what are you thinking, darling?" a question that can rarely be answered truthfully without heading for the divorce court.