Dating Faux Pas

Today’s Rant is a bit of a departure from its usual topics. Hopefully this list is helpful. Feel free to add comments and additional points.

1. DO NOT DATE AT WORK! Resist the urge. I don’t care how “hot” someone is…don’t do it. It causes awkwardness if it does not work out. Unless you are 99.9% sure you will marry this person, it will most likely end, and as every should know, there is almost never a “clean” break where both people are “friends”. The reason friendship is not possible after a relationship is because there were deeper feelings in the first place, which means they do not magically disappear…and for both parties no less. And if you run with the same group of friends, then it causes tension…”Who’s side do I take?”…“If we want to go to happy hour, which one should we invite?”…Etc. Lastly, if you work in the same department, DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT date that person. You have to work with this person. And if it ends ‘bad’, how will you continue to work with them? If you really want to date someone in your department, then either switch departments or find a new job!
2. MARRIED WITH CHILDREN…or any variation thereof! Getting involved, knowingly, with a married individual is not a wise choice. Even IF they claim to be “separated”, I wouldn’t take their word for it unless you have been attending the divorce proceedings. If they are not separating, and having an affair with you, then hopefully you are smart enough to realize it will not last. And if they do leave their spouse for you, then expect to have them cheat on YOU! Once a cheater, always a cheater!
Ah, the bundles of bliss that are children! Getting involved with someone who has children is very risky and frustrating. There may be resentment shown from the children…that you are trying to take their biological mother or father’s place. Plus, kids are work. Relationships are hard enough…throw kids on top of that…and unless you are a saint, prepare to be aggravated.
3. DO NOT LOAN SOMEONE MONEY! This is wrong on so many levels. First, if this is someone you have known a short while (i.e. less than 6 months) it is inappropriate for him or her to be asking you for a "loan". Assuming they are older than 18 years old, they have had at least that span of time to make longer-lasting friendships than yours, and can ask them. Second, if someone needs money, it shows they are most likely irresponsible with money and that is NOT someone you want to be involved with. There are various ways to get cash in a pinch and this person should be looking into those avenues…ever hear of a cash advance on a credit card?! So unless it is some extreme reason that you can VALIDATE, the person is probably bull-shitting you and know that if you “loan” them the money, expect to never see it again. Instead, expect that they will try to “hit-you-up” for money again!
4. TURN OFF THAT PHONE! If you are on a date, turn off your phone…or turn to vibrate and then check to see who called, check messages, etc. when you take a bathroom break. Unless you are waiting to hear the results of Grandma’s live-saving surgery, DO NOT PICK UP THAT PHONE. You are on a date, and want your partner to know that he or she has captured your attention.
5. ALWAYS LOOK SOMEONE IN THE EYES! This doesn’t mean stare the person down…which will have the opposite effect. Just be sure to look them in the eyes from time to time during the conversation. Again, this is to let the person know you are listening to them and when you are speaking, that you have their attention.
6. DON’T LIE/OVEREMBELLISH! It will only come back to haunt you. Unless you plan on this being the one and only date and will probably not converse with this person ever again for as long as you both shall live…don’t lie. First of all, do you really want a relationship to begin with falsehoods? You should know if someone likes or doesn’t like you for you...not for your lies. Plus, people usually get caught in them. It is hard to keep lies up forever. One day it might “slip” and then you have lost the person’s trust. So with that said…BE YOURSELF!
7. MEN-EXPECT TO PAY…sorry! Unfortunately, it is still very customary for a man to pay. Although equal-right activists/believers (like myself) agree this isn’t right, it is still viewed that a man should make a strong attempt to pick up the check. It should be custom that the person who asks the other person out, be the one to pay but if a woman asks you out, unless she INSISTS on paying, do your best to convince her otherwise if you plan on seeing her again. For lesbian and gay relationships…flip a coin! Just kidding. Revert to the aforementioned custom of the person who asked the other one out, be the one to pay. For group/orgy type dates…got me on that one!
8. TO KISS OR NOT TO KISS? Unless you are 7-years-old and believe the opposite sex has “coo-dies”, then at the end of the first date, a soft, brief kiss on the lips is very appropriate. It assures the other person that you are attracted to them without jumping in their pants. However, if as you attempt to kiss someone, they move back or give you their cheek, then that should send up the warning-sign that they “just want to be friends.” Otherwise, it is due to a religious belief, but you would know this before you make it to the end of the evening because the person has talked all night about their faith. Note: no garlic with dinner as this may significantly alter the intended outcome.
9. DO NOT DRINK…Too much! This can be an awkward moment on a first dinner-date. Ironically, it is usually at the beginning of the date. What happens if you order a drink and your partner does not? Don’t fret! Have your one drink but be sure not to order another one even if you are not the one driving. Also, do not comment to the person, “Why aren’t you drinking?” The person may be a recovering alcoholic and this puts them on the stop to divulge very personal information right away. If they happen to mention that they are recovering, don’t look shocked or disgusted, unless you want to end the date right there, rather comment that it takes a strong-willed person to overcome the disease. Staying positive is the quickest way too…
10. SEX…though you should avoid having it at least for a few dates! Although personally, a man I picked up at a bar and had sex with wound up being my longest relationship to date, do not use my life as an example to follow. If you have sex on the first date, you can usually be assured of one of two outcomes: a. You never hear from the person again. b. The person becomes obsessed with you and will not stop contacting you. If you think the sex is worth it anyway…then have fun and BE SAFE!

It Takes A Village...

“Every few months or so, some horrifying child-abuse case elbows its way onto the front pages, and there is a general outcry: How could this have happened? Where were the caseworkers? Lock up the monsters who did this! Let’s investigate and reform the child welfare system.” (Bob Herbert, New York Times) But then the story subsides…Americans go back to worrying about all the other issues plaguing this country. Personally, no issue is as important as this one! “Child abuse is a hideous, widespread and chronic problem across the country. And it doesn’t get nearly enough attention.” (Bob Herbert, New York Times)

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported nearly 1,500 children DIED from abuse or neglect in 2003. Yet this estimate is probably low since most state records are notoriously haphazard. This same year, authorities were alerted to nearly 3 million cases of youngsters who were alleged to have been ABUSED OR NEGLECTED and confirmed at least a MILLION of them. To give you just ONE example of the horrors that take place, authorities in Michigan reported the case of 7-year-old, Ricky Holland, who begged his school nurse not to send him home to his adoptive parents. He was later beaten to death with a hammer. Prosecutors said his bloody body was dragged away in a garbage bag. To think we live in a country where this happens FOUR times a day!

“We know that there is a profound connection between child abuse and substance abuse…We know that abuse and neglect are more likely to occur in households were money is in short supply, especially if caregivers are unemployed…And adults who were abused as children are more likely than others to be abusers themselves.” (Bob Herbert, New York Times) Putting these generalizations aside, we have a viewpoint in this country as reflected by our President, Republican Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee and others, who commented during a debate on same sex marriage, "Will activist judges not elected by the American people destroy the institution of marriage, or will the people protect marriage as the best way to raise children?” If the numbers previously mentioned don’t send shivers down your spine than maybe you agree with this viewpoint.

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman." (Bill Frist) Here is another generalization, since legalized gay unions are fairly new, it would be likely to conclude that the 1,500 deaths and 1 million cases of abuse and neglect came from an opposite sex household. (Of course I could be wrong!)

“Child-abuse prevention programs are wholly inadequate, and child protective services, while varying in quality from state to state, are in many instances overwhelmed and largely unaccountable.” (Bob Herbert, New York Times) Then maybe we should be spending our time, money and efforts trying to prevent another Ricky Holland from being beaten to death than squabbling over the definition of marriage. After all, aren’t safe, happy homes the real goal here?

The Spying Game…How Safe Are We?

With the Bush crusade against the “evil-doers”, one has to wonder if aligning themselves with his position, is in fact, an act of evil when hypocrisy is embedded throughout the Bush administration’s policies.

It has become a moniker of the Bush tenure: “You’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists.” President Bush first spoke this statement in an address to a joint session of Congress and the nation nine days after the attacks of Sept 11th. Since then, he has used this phrase to continue to strike fear into Americans and be willing to give up numerous civil liberties in the name of national security.

“This is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America, and I repeat, limited,” Bush said in regards to the eavesdropping program set up after 9/11. “I think most Americans understand the need to find out what the enemy’s thinking. We’re at war with an enemy that wants to hurt us again.” If I understand the president’s position, we should ‘bend’ our civil liberties, use our National Defense attacking a country in the Middle East that did not have “weapons of mass destruction”, subsequently, using valuable money, resources, and most importantly, American lives, with still the threat of terrorism looming over our heads.

With Americans in a panic and recently hearing about an avoided attack in Los Angeles, it is perplexing that we would allow Dubai Ports World to control shipping facilities at six leading American ports. The Bush administration’s approval of the recent sale of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company for $6.8 billion to a company located in the capital of United Arab Emirates, where the Sept 11th plotters had funneled money, makes you wonder about an administration that has made national security its top priority. “They said security at American ports-where only 5 percent of incoming cargo is inspected-is one of the country’s biggest vulnerabilities”, reported Brian Knowlton, International Herald Tribune, 2/19/06. Michael Chertoff, homeland security secretary, told ABC News, “We put safeguards in place and assurances in place that make everybody comfortable.” Declining to say what safeguards were being implemented, he is asking us to trust him and the Bush administration blindly.

“There’s an enemy out there,” said Bush. (The News-Journal, 1/2/06) No, Mr. President, there is an enemy right here. “It’s a suicide mission, with a nation strapped to the White House.” (The News-Journal, 11/27/05)

The Female Dynamic

The history of feminism reaches far back before the 18th century, but the seeds of the feminist movement were planted during the latter portion of that century. The earliest works on the so-called "woman question" criticised the restrictive role of women, without necessarily claiming that women were disadvantaged. In both World Wars, manpower shortages brought women into traditionally male occupations, ranging from manufacturing and mechanical work to a female baseball league. By demonstrating that women could do "men's work", and highlighting society's dependence on their labour, this shift encouraged women to strive for equality.

Many feminists also fought to change perceptions of female sexual behaviour. Since it was often considered more acceptable for men to have multiple sexual partners, many feminists encouraged women into "sexual liberation" and having sex for pleasure with multiple partners leading to a new dating revolution were women offered to pay half the check with "woman money" as a way to show that a woman's worth in society was not determined by her looks, that she was not an ornament up for sale to the highest bidder.

Modern day feminism has taken a sharp u-turn back towards pre-70's ideals. “Jurassic feminists shudder at the retro implication of a quid profiterole. But it doesn't matter if the woman is making as much money as the man, or more, she expects him to pay, both to prove her desirability and as a way of signaling romance - something that's more confusing in a dating culture rife with casual hookups and group activities.”(“What's a Modern Girl to Do?” By Maureen Dowd, New York Times, 10/30/2005)

Since this reversion has affected the dating scene, it has also crossed into the institute of marriage. " ‘Ms.’ was supposed to neutralize the stature of women, so they weren't publicly defined by their marital status. When The (New York) Times finally agreed to switch to Ms. in its news pages in 1986, after much hectoring by feminists, Gloria Steinem sent flowers to the executive editor, Abe Rosenthal. But nowadays most young brides want to take their husbands' names and brag on the moniker Mrs., a brand that proclaims you belong to him. T-shirts with "MRS." emblazoned in sequins or sparkly beads are popular wedding-shower gifts. (Dowd) I’ve always wondered why their isn’t a moniker signaling a married man vs. a single man?

What about the man’s viewpoint? “I'd been noticing a trend…famous and powerful men took up with young women whose job it was to care for them and nurture them in some way: their secretaries, assistants, nannies, caterers, flight attendants…” John Schwartz of The New York Times noted the trend in 2004 when he reported: "Men would rather marry their secretaries than their bosses, and evolution may be to blame." A study by psychology researchers at the University of Michigan, using college undergraduates, suggested that men going for long-term relationships would rather marry women in subordinate jobs than women who are supervisors. Men think that women with important jobs are more likely to cheat on them. There it is, right in the DNA: women get penalized by insecure men for being too independent. “They worry that men still veer away from "challenging" women because of a male atavistic desire to be the superior force in a relationship.” (Dowd)

So it is not just a trend, rather a natural instinct, according to this research. But has this viewpoint been the cause of the 70’s feminism to retreat into modern day feminism where women seem to be looking for male approval? A ‘natural’ instinct to back down to a man in order not to intimidate him and in return, win his approval? Let’s hope not but my fear is that it is. Granted women are no longer burning their bras, rather ordering more breast-enhancing bras from Victoria’s Secret. But is this actually a new power assertion?

Note: You should never comprise who you are or your beliefs in order to conform to a standard or even to win someone's heart. If someone does not love you for who you are, then you are better off without them. At the same token, never hold yourself in too high a regard...for it is a lonely place you seek.

Pornography

Today’s Rant is going to talk about my second favorite topic…pornography. Heeeeyyyyy, how you doin’?!

If you believe in the Bible, you accept the fact that Eve enticed Adam to bite the apple from the Tree of Knowledge. And with this bite, came the realization of sexuality. If you believe in a more scientific standpoint, then you agree that animals, including humans, have a natural instinct to procreate. So what is wrong with pornography and the incentive of its actions?

Religious faiths would say it encourages pre-marital and extra-marital sex. I say, if they stop making sex taboo and secretive and accept this knowledge bestowed upon us from the beginning of humankind, than maybe less people will cheat on their spouses. (Maybe not, but it was worth mentioning) Think about this, if Adam had not taken a bite of that apple, then we wouldn’t be here to discuss it. Unless of course we were all blessed with the Holy Spirit’s divine intervention and had our mother’s bear us through ‘immaculate conception’.

Another argument against pornography comes from a mostly lesbian and asexual female collaboration. Their viewpoint is that pornography encourages violence against women as well as rape. “Pornography does not simply create a climate in which sex and violence are interchangeable; it widens the range of behavior considered acceptable from men in heterosexual intercourse-behavior which reiteratively strips women of their autonomy, dignity and sexual potential, including the potential of loving and being loved by women in mutuality and integrity.” (Adrienne Rich, Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence, 1980)*

And who partakes in this climate? Women! If this is true, then women need to point the fingers at themselves. If a female porn star lets someone else degrade them for money, for others to view, shouldn’t they take any responsibility? Well you could pull a ‘Linda Lovelace’ and say how you were ‘forced’ to partake in these actions.

“The most pernicious message relayed by pornography is that women are natural sexual prey to men and love it, that sexuality and violence are congruent, and that for women sex is essentially masochistic, humiliation pleasurable, physical abuse erotic.” (Rich) I agree that there is pornography that is all these things…and even worse, but is it right to categorize all pornography? What about soft pornography or scenes in a movie where the two performers are ‘making love’? Where is the line between so called ‘normal’ sexual interaction between a man and a woman ok and where does it turn into a power struggle?

For some, there is not ‘normal’ sexual interaction between a man and a woman. “All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a women.” (Catherine MacKinnon, author of Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies) Yet ironically, most porn stars, both male and female will tell you that their roles are powerful by creating a sexual desire. But feminist writers like Marilyn Frye, suggest a double bind in how society actual views women’s sexuality. “If she is heterosexually active, a woman is open to censure and punishment for being loose, unprincipled or a whore…On the other hand, if she refrains from heterosexual activity, she is fairly constantly harassed by men who try to persuade her into it and pressure her to “relax”…threatened with labels like “frigid”.” (Frye, “Oppression” The Politics of Reality) While I do agree with Frye that this mentality does still exist in our society it is not a universal viewpoint by all men. For many modern men, pleasuring a woman is the goal in their sexual exploits. The power is no longer solely about his orgasism but about hers.

“…All heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” (MacKinnon, p.129) To label all pornography as vial and insulting to women would be a misnomer. To label all heterosexual intercourse as an act of violence IS vial and insulting. For example, I do not find anything insulting to women about Chippendales and I have been there a few times to aptly state from experience. The women there seem to feel very “strongly” about giving “meaningful consent.”

*If you are wondering how I knew about Rich’s work, this was actually part of the syllabus for an introductory course in Philosophy. Some introduction!