A couple of weeks ago, the subject of deal-breakers came up. Jokes ensue about people who have bumper stickers and people who wear questionable belts.

But since we've talked about my friends' deal-breakers once before, I'll confess a few of mine:

+ intense love of Top 40 music (select songs are OK, but yes, I'm a music snob)
+ anything less than love for High Fidelity (the book and/or movie)
+ questionable grooming habits
+ kids
+ lack of a sense of humor

Although, once we break it down, deal-breakers are really stock excuses for not feeling a person. If you are really into a person, you can forgive nearly anything. Even poems about making love in mayonnaise.

Attraction and love are such abstract and ephemeral concepts; sometimes you can be totally into someone one minute and totally turned off in another. And how do you use something as intangible as "it didn't feel right" as an excuse for not dating someone?

Enter the deal-breakers.

Or perhaps I'm projecting again. Your thoughts? 

Posted by Maryann James at 7:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
                    

The other day, dating coach Liz Kelly, a Baltimore native and an L.A. resident, compared the dating scenes of the two fair cities for me. Here's a break-down of our conversation.

1. There's more singles in L.A. But that is not necessarily always good. "There's just so many singles and so much competition."
2. At its worst, Baltimore is too traditional. "In Baltimore, most of my friends, 95% are married. In Baltimore, I think it's more traditional. People get married sooner." Because it's traditional, dates are a bigger deal in Baltimore, she says.
3. At its worst, L.A. is flaky. Because there are so many options, many people have a case of what she calls "Bigger Better Deal Syndrome" -- everyone's looking out for someone more beautiful than the person they're with or the next person who can get their TV show made or buy their script. "It's like ADD with dating," she says.

Kelly says she often coaches singles who are totally clueless on the basics of dating. People have no problem standing people up for a date. Others don't know how to make a date and confirm it later in the week. "Guys will confirm at 5 p.m. Saturday for Saturday night date,"  she says. And then they're confused when their date is heading out with someone else. "Dating is different than running a company," she says. "...you have to romance her."

Possibly because of BBD Syndrome, Kelly says she also sees a lot of very eligible single women in L.A. "I also see a lot of beautiful, together, women that aren't dating anybody," she says. "Guys are going for the eye candy rather than the brains. It's just crazy sometimes."
3. At its best, L.A. is a dater's playground. "People don't take dates so seriously out here," she says. It's easy to have three dates in a week. You're just kind of shopping."
4. At its best, Baltimore is more real. Kelly says it's easier to know where you stand in the Land of Pleasant Living. "There's a lot of reliable, solid, genuine, sincere people," she says. "And if they don't want to date you they're going to tell you ... you're gonna run into them at the bar the next week, you're gonna have some of the same friends."

Now, granted, there are some broad generalizations. But it was pretty funny (and enlightening) to talk about the surface differences in the two cities. Anyone care to put in their two cents?

Posted by Maryann James at 12:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)
                    

My pal Sam is usually the go-to guy for cool things to do in the city, but I've got my own suggestion this week: The Baltimore Book Festival.

It's already snaring up traffic, so you might as well park your car in a remote location and walk down to the Book Festival in Mount Vernon. There's plenty of events, plenty of studly studiers and bookish beauties (like yours truly; and yes, i'm done with alliteration for now) and plenty of books to peruse.

And, if you're there tomorrow afternoon, come check me out, around 5:30, at the Karibu Books tent; I'll be introducing Doug and Jackie Christie, authors of No Ordinary Love: A True Story of Marriage and Basketball.

Posted by Maryann James at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
                    

In between girlfriends? Well then, this is for you:

Photo courtesy of Collections, etc.

It's a girlfriend pillow. And it vibrates. I have no other words for this (other than creepy), but I imagine it can be great for those cold and lonely nights on the couch.

Go ahead and buy it. I won't tell anyone.

Posted by Maryann James at 11:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
                    

This week I've been talking to people about standards and the difference between being realistic and settling -- when your beau doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions of what your mate should be like.

Most people don't stick to their "list," however abstract it is, but here is a case, from someone who wrote to the Sex & Moxie blog, when you should not compromise on your standards (such as no cheaters):

We became exclusive and all was fine and I was very happy.  This all changed a few months ago when I snooped and found some text messages.   Yes shame on me but can’t go back in time.  He said they were nothing and that he loved me and wanted to be with only me, etc.  We are even looking for a house to buy together and we have a joint bank account.  I forgave and moved on but I know he still does it.  How do I know?  Because I have no trust now and have snooped again and again and it is always a different woman he texts.  I know he isn’t physically cheating but I have put a wall up because of this.  The reason I am staying with him is because I love him, we have a history and I don’t want to date again because it sucks.  Most of my friends are married with children or in serious relationships so if I were not with him, my social life would be pretty much non existent.  I may not feel this way forever but for now this is my deal.  The problem is with my friends who think I am crazy for settling and think I can do so much better.

This is an easy one to answer -- when you're not the person in the relationship. But plenty of us have fallen for it.

"Settling" is not just limited to the guy that isn't your physical type or who snorts when they laugh; it encompasses those with bad behavior or who don't just hold that spark, but that you're with anyway, either because you're bored or just afraid to be alone. Any thoughts?

Posted by Maryann James at 1:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
                    

We already knew this, but now there's medical proof: Holding it in during an argument is bad. 

It's not only bad for your relationship, but it's also bad for your health. 

Women who don't express themselves during arguments with their partner are more likely to die of heart disease and other ailments, according to a 10-year study led by a Gaithersburg epidemiologist. However, keeping it in has no effect on men.

This is in line with other studies -- including one that showed people's blisters healed more slowly after marital spats.

Why? It basically comes down to stress. Women tend to be more affected by emotional nuances than men, says researcher Janice Klecolt-Glaser.

When I talked to dating coach Toni Coleman a couple of weeks ago about arguing, she said that women tend to keep stuff bottled up (I know I often do), rather than speak their mind. She says people need to speak up when they're little things.

Apparently, it could be a matter of life and death. 

Posted by Maryann James at 12:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
                    

After the debate with LA Lover over the supposed dearth of single women in Baltimore, a friend of mine suggested that I read The Game, partly because her boyfriend thought LA Lover's "20 percent of women are single" line came from that book.

I'm not nearly halfway through the book right now and I'm already disgusted and exhausted.

As it turns out, my reading of this book, which features an L.A. pick-up god, Mystery, coincides with the finale of VH1's Pick-up Artist, which also features Mr. Mystery.

I talked to our reality show guru, Sarah Kickler Kelber, about the show and the book, and it seems we both had the same problem with Mystery's whole approach: The methods that he teaches are not about really connecting with a woman, it's all about manipulation.

You've gotta wear a piece of outrageous clothing to catch women's eyes. Ignore the attractive woman in a group and pay attention to the ugly chicks and the men in the group. When you do talk to the pretty woman, throw out a neg -- an insult wrapped in a compliment -- to bring down her self-esteem just a bit. And through it all, the target is the kiss-close.

It's great that these bits give nerdy guys confidence. But methods like Mystery's can hardly ever lead to a string of empty encounters. Is that what dating is really supposed to be about? Perhaps I'm naive, but aren't hook-ups still about some sort of connection?

Posted by Maryann James at 11:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
                    

It's no singles guide. It's even better. 

In the next few weeks, I'm starting a new feature for Mondays, where I profile Baltimoreans -- singletons and committeds -- and dig their brains for their thoughts about and experiences with dating and relationships.

If you're interested in being profiled, photographed and posted (or know someone who should), holler, either by commenting or e-mail.

Posted by Maryann James at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
                    

I often joke that I need to find myself a sugar daddy so that I can become accustomed to the lifestyle I am supposed to have -- chauffeur, fabulous trips, being able to work only because I want to, etc.

Well, it appears that my "prayers" have been answered, in the form of sugardaddyforme.com.

Catherinette Singleton directed me to this site, and I registered -- you know, so I could research the site. This site is apparently for Sugar Daddies, Sugar Mommas, "Sugar Babies," and people who are married and looking for an extramarital affair (The options for Marital Status are Single, Divorced, Married and Do You Care?). There is even a section in Sugar Daddies' and Mommas' profiles for "Financial Assistance I Can Afford."

On their homepage, they ilst their philosophy:

Our philosophy goes back to the cave ages - Men want the younger and more attractive women.

And, women, want the man with the bigger and more sheltered cave. The able provider and strong protector. This translates today to a man having the means of providing a woman with all the possible comforts and luxuries. Money and Power. Qualities that are irresistible to women.

Over the years, society has tried to set rules (whether it be having an ExtraMarital affair or Pre-Marital Sex) as to what's "right" and what is "wrong". Attraction to Money, Power, and Physical Beauty is in our genes. It's about time we lost the games and lived life the way WE want to - by following our instincts. After all, it's a very short life! Explore now.

I'm trying ot to judge -- the concept of marriage is based in financial matters, after all -- but can someone tell me how this is any different from an escort service?

Posted by Maryann James at 3:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (10)
                    

In the case of the friend who carried on a long conversation with the VERY taken person without knowing she was taken, I stand corrected. Dancing Monkey, you are right. The onus shouldn't be on the person who is already in a relationship, it should be on the person who is interested in starting one:

Perhaps the better question is, when does one reveal they're interested in potentially dating someone? If you approach someone at a party with motives other than finding out how they feel about war, peace or the offerings on the buffet, then perhaps the onus is on *you* to get to the point rather than blaming them for not being single.

The question did bring up some interesting comments. BaltAmour reader aeb said that it seems kind of off-putting that you would be talking to someone ONLY for the purpose of dating them. And I agree. Nonetheless, most people, such as commenter Pete, said there's usually a way to work your status in a conversation and, oftentimes, there is some kind of sign that the other person is taken -- e.g. "We went to this great restaurant the other night," a ring, a mention of "our house" -- that is, if you're paying attention.

As it turns out, Unavailable Girl had the clues out in broad daylight -- she had a ring.

And PhillyPhile brings out an even more interesting question:

What’s more difficult is when you can tell a woman is interested in you, and you think to yourself, “when/how do I tell her I’m gay?”.

Posted by Maryann James at 12:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
                    

My friend M was telling me last night about one of her uncles, a swinging bachelor type, who used to (and presumably still does) employ a pick-up technique that was absolutely outrageous: If he saw a woman who wanted to talk to -- and as it often happens, was with a gaggle of other women -- he'd yell out a string of common girls' names until one of them turned around.

She says he says it works.

I SWEAR I've seen that before. On TV. But never in real life.

Posted by Maryann James at 11:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
                    

Seriously to most men a single woman in her late 20s or 30s with a cat is a huge red-flag and a flashing neon sign screaming "stay away, crazy cat woman".

As a pet owner and a dating blogger, I think this is ridiculous and unfair. Indiana says that men do not appreciate that "pet owner" likely also means "caring person." Instead, they are simply focused on the fact that you have to leave home early to walk your dog or feed your cat and that the animal will take precedence over them.

Here's a tip: If a girl has to leave drinks or a date early to take care of their animal, it is likely at least one of three things:

1. She is a bad planner. Most people who have pets can plan their schedules well enough to have a life and care for their pets.
2. She is obsessed with her pet.
3. She just doesn't dig you and is using Fido as an excuse.

There are plenty of women (and men) out there who love their pets and are far from obsessed (exception: see Jamie from Confessions of a Matchmaker.) Indiana, don't lump all pet owners in one group and pull out the tired cat lady cliche because you had one bad experience.

What do you think? Anyone have an experience or argument to prove me wrong? 

Posted by Maryann James at 9:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)
                    

I was out with two of my friends the other night, one (Friend 1) who is going through a break-up and another (Friend 2) who is still fighting a fake-up, when Friend 1 asked us, "What's so great about being single?"

There was silence at the table. Then, being the swinging single I am, I responded, "Because you're free! You don't have to answer to anyone! You can be your own person!"

Which is partly true, and partly a lie. When you're in a relationship, you can still be your own person. (In fact, I'd say it's better when you are.) The only difference between being single and taken is that when you're single, you can afford to be selfish and have some measure of all-about-me focus, because, well, it is only you.

But having been single for nearly a year now -- I've dated, but not settled down -- sometimes I do struggle with that question of what's great about singledom. Sometimes, as my friend B says, you just want someone to go to the picture show with. (No, he isn't from the 1930s.)

Well, Michael Kramer over at MSN Dating makes the case that being single is great. Or, at very least, that it doesn't mean something's wrong with you if you're not coupled up:

The fact is, we all go through life on our own timetable. I know many people who found their true love a little later in life. It wasn’t because they were crazy or afraid to commit or told too many corny jokes on dates or any of that stuff. It was because they found their true love a little later in life. 

What do you think? What's great about being single? What's bad? 

(Thanks for the link, MAJ.) 

Posted by Maryann James at 3:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)
                    

In the past three weeks, two of my friends' long-term relationships (more than 2 years) dissolved. Last year, around this time, myself and at least two other friends were dealing with break-ups as well.

Now, I know that this anecdotal evidence is hardly substantial enough to indicate a trend, but ... is it? Has anyone else noticed a higher break-up rate among your friends and acquaintances at the end of summer/beginning of fall? Are people coming out of their summertime good feelings and coming back to reality? 

Posted by Maryann James at 1:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
                    

What's the difference between knowing what you want and being picky? (When it relates to mates, of course.)

I'd say that I'm very particular when it comes to naming characteristics of my ideal mate, but in reality, my criteria is more in line with CD's:

I used to be a bit picky, now I have very few requirements, primarily that I'm attracted to her (indefinable I've found), she isn't stupid, and she is honest. My other criteria have been shot to hell when I've met women who I've fallen for who totally didn't meet them and I learned not to focus so much on those things. Sometimes the things I thought I wouldn't like taught me patience and I learned to appreciate differences.

However, my Seinfeld tendencies will reveal themselves when a relationship is on the rocks (see: break-up, falling asleep during High Fidelity). And I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who will not compromise on certain personality and physical traits. Anyone have strict criteria for their mates, or does time eventually wear everyone down to compromise (or settle, depending on who you talk to)?

Posted by Maryann James at 11:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
                    

One of my friends went to a party the other night and talked to this woman for hours, about dating, relationships, etc., only to find out, at the end of the night, that she was in a nine-year relationship.

So my friend's question to me was: How long should you have a conversation with someone before you reveal that you're in a relationship?

I think that there is no answer to that. Most conversations are not for the express purpose of dating, hooking up, etc., so why should you have to volunteer your dating status within the first 15 minutes of chatting? (I can also hear the women riled up, too [head movement optional]: Are you saying you're just talking to me because you want to date me?)

That said, it would be nice to know sometimes, just so that you don't get your hopes up about someone who is already joined at the hip to someone else. And in the case of my friend, I think it's a little suspicious that Unavailable Girl didn't bring up her partner the whole time they were talking.

This is why I think that Federal Hill Runners has the right idea: Everyone should wear corresponding accessories to their dating status, availablilty, preference, etc. It'd make dating that much easier.

Posted by Maryann James at 1:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)
                    

Well, the Lock and Key parties held at bars around town make meeting people a lot easier and pretty entertaining as well. All the women get little diary-style locks and all the guys get keys that they spend the evening trying to fit in the women's locks. Sure, it's absurdly phallic, but it's also any easy conversation starter that keeps people mingling and moving.

Sounds a little creepy if you ask me. But I'm skeptical of most singles events. Nothing like a room full of singles, with the express purpose meeting someone, to make you feel your most forced and ill at ease.

To get something, you have to go after it, sure, but most singles events sound like a new level of hell. To meet someone, I think it's gotta be more organic than wandering around a bar, trying to fill out a corny goal. Perhaps that's why I'm still single, but I prefer methods that are based on a little more than chance -- like mates4dates in the U.K.: your friends (and friends of friends) help introduce you to new dates.

What's your position on singles events? Anyone know of some good singles events in the area? Anyone have a bad experience at one?

Posted by Maryann James at 11:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
                    

I've been running around all day, but I can't neglect you my dear readers.

So here's a link to get you through the last few hours before the weekend:

It's a game sponsored by AOL (you remember them?), where you go on a "virtual date" -- you pick the venue and your date, and then you gain points or lose them, based on your choices for questions or answers for your date.

Have fun. And have a good weekend!

Posted by Maryann James at 1:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
                    

This study by University of Vermont nursing professor Sharyl Toscano makes the case for friends being somewhat involved in your relationship (it's dry, academic reading; if you want the abridged version, check out the press release). Toscano talked to 22 Massachusetts high school girls about their dating experiences and friendships and found that friends help keep friends from bad relationships, particularly when it comes to abuse.

Girls' social circles set the tone for their dating relationships, she says, provide feedback on whether a relationship is bad, and also provide a means for getting out.

I chatted with her this morning about her study, and she says that this behavior tends to phase out as women get older; high schoolers' fragile personalities and confidence lend to need for intense group reassurance. Besides, as Toscano points out, high schoolers start with little to no experience in dating. How else will you learn, unless you watch others?

As she's living on campus housing, she says she notices students usually only revert back to the group model when it comes to Internet dating, possibly because they know so little about the person on the other end of the interwebs.

But surely there are those late bloomers and those people who didn't quite get past the high school stage. Anyone know anyone who relies a bit too much on their friends' opinions, especially when it comes to relationships? 

Posted by Maryann James at 1:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)
                    

My friend K won't date bartenders ("They get hit on at least twice every night."). My friend N won't date actors or musicians ("If he lives here, then he's not doing well and I'll have to support him. If he's doing well, he'll be on tour and I can't handle that.").

I think these rules are silly. But, playing devil's advocate, what's the difference between saying you won't date someone with kids and saying you won't date someone because of their job?

Do you have any job-related parameters for your potential dates?

Posted by Maryann James at 11:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
                    

Essence Magazine has started a month of Webisodes called 30 Dates in 30 Days. They've picked five women in New York, who will go out with six men each. Viewers get to choose their dates from a pool of eligible bachelors, their venue and their outfits. Then, each night, they go out, Essence tapes it and distills into a 5-minute episode.

I watched the second date (the first? the header says first, the player says Date 2) for Nicole, a talent producer for radio host Wendy Williams. (I'm trying to see if I can embed the video, but for now, just follow the link.)

I LOVE the end, when it's so obvious that Nicole wants a kiss good night. Her date, Bernard, said he wanted to go out again, so perhaps he was just being a gentleman. Or maybe he's just camera shy?

Posted by Maryann James at 9:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)