I'm a 35-year-old woman, and my boyfriend of a year is 43. Sadly, my friends and family don't like him. They think he's "not good enough" for me. Their argument: He doesn't have a full-time job with benefits (like me), plus he smokes pot to relax; therefore, he is lazy and will live off me and my retirement money. (Sorry, but enjoying retirement alone isn't my idea of a "secure future.") He has a part-time job he likes, makes enough to pay his bills in a (small) house he owns, and saves for things he wants. He is loving, has my back to an unreasonable degree, and says he's pretty sure he used up all his luck getting me. Unfortunately, all minds are made up; there's no explaining what a deeply good man he is. I feel awkward bringing him to gatherings or even mentioning him. The worst, though, is my nagging question: Could they be right?
--Torn
There are people who chase their dreams, and there are those -- like your boyfriend -- who just chillax on the couch, smoking a doob, waiting for their dreams to be in the neighborhood and maybe knock on the door.
He does sound like a good man -- which doesn't necessarily mean he's a good man to make a life with (which is why everybody's campaigning for you to ditch him). Maybe you're thinking, "Okay, so he's kind of a laid-back dude. It's 2016; can't the woman be the breadwinner?" Well, yes...but his lack of drive is likely to be a problem -- at least eventually.
Evolutionary developmental psychologist Bruce J. Ellis explains that there's this notion by some social scientists -- called the "structural powerlessness hypothesis" -- that women only go for powerful men because they themselves lack power. This, Ellis writes, is "directly contradicted" by research -- on feminist leaders, for example -- that finds that "high-power women (want) super-powerful men." They aren't all, "Well, I make plenty of money; I think I'll marry Hot Julio, the pool boy."
As for why this is, Ellis explains (as I often do) that ancestral women who went for mover-and-shaker men were more likely to have children who survived and passed on their genes. "Over evolutionary time," he writes, "evaluative mechanisms" were built into female psychology to push women "to detect and prefer males" with a "willingness and ability" to provide for them and their children.
A guy doesn't necessarily have to be rich for you to get your "man with mate value!" box checked. What seems to matter is potential -- that he is ambitious and has a reasonable shot at achieving what he's going after.
Now, maybe you went for your sweet underachiever as a reaction to jerks in your recent past -- or because it's supposedly "shallow" to want a partner to be, say, at least a certain height or making some kind of mark in business. But, using the height example, if you really aren't attracted to shorter guys, getting involved with one is basically benevolent cruelty. Sooner or later, your libido's going to be all, "Okay, so you got drunk and went home with the garden gnome. But enough is enough."
It is possible that you and Laid-Back Larry could live happily ever after. But ask yourself some questions: Where do you see yourself in five years? Could you count on him to put down the bong and go make money if you got sick? Will your friends and family come to accept him, or will you end up unhappily isolated? And finally, do you want kids? If so, consider that you can downscale your lifestyle but you can't downscale your kid from needing dental care or hand him makeshift forceps to take the toy truck out of his nose.
Sure, this guy would probably be the ideal stay-at-home dad. But consider -- in line with what Ellis explains -- that a number of studies find that women married to a Mr. Mom often end up resenting and losing respect for him, and those marriages are more likely to end in divorce.
You probably need some time to figure all of this out. Because people read the words in letters (instead of yelling over them), maybe write one to your family to ask them to be kind to him at family functions -- for your sake. And finally, try not to be so dramatic about your options. You're 35. The fertility train might be leaving the station pretty soon, but it's not like this guy is your last chance before "Marriage is between a woman and her cat!" and "P.S. Snowball and I are registered at Bloomingdale's and Petco."
I dragged my boyfriend into the makeup store Sephora, and he said, "Save your money! You don't need any of this stuff. I like you better without makeup." Huh? Why is there a huge makeup industry when so many men say they don't even like makeup?
--Pretty Confused
A friend of mine, bioethicist Alice Dreger, tweeted, "True story: I was on Oprah for a show about how appearance doesn't matter and there was a whole guy tasked with doing just her eyelashes."
A whole lot of us are in some denial about makeup. And sure, there are men who really do like women better without a drop of the stuff. And then there are those who just think they do -- like the men on Reddit who posted all of these supposed "no makeup!" photos of female celebs. I particularly loved one of Jenna Jameson that a guy captioned "before all the surgeries and without makeup." Meanwhile, tiny type below the photo lists the makeup and hair goo she actually has on. My other favorite was one of Rihanna, who also very clearly was not sans maquillage. Guys, sorry, but cat-eye liquid eyeliner does not appear naturally on the female eye in the wild.
Biological anthropologist Douglas Jones finds that men are attracted to women with somewhat "neotenous" features -- meaning somewhat babylike ones like big eyes, full lips, a small jaw and chin, and clear skin -- which correlate with health and fertility. So, basically, what we call "beauty" is evolution's version of a street-corner sign spinner: "Genes passed on here!!! Best babies in town!!!"
In other words, makeup is fake-up -- a woman's way of making herself out to have more neotenous features and thus a higher mate value than she actually does. (The male version of this is leasing a top-of-the-line Tesla while living in a tent in Grandma's backyard.)
So, a man will think he has an aversion to makeup, but it's really an aversion to being deceived by it. This doesn't mean you have to stop wearing it. Just keep in mind that -- except for special occasions and those special dudes who are into your looking like your office is a pole -- men generally prefer the "natural look." Of course, the reality is, this sort of "natural" is about an hour and a dozen products away from being "au naturel." What ultimately matters is that you don't look so dramatically different in makeup that when your boyfriend bumps into the barefaced you at the fridge in the wee hours, he puts his hands up and yells, "Take whatever you want; just let me live!"
This guy and I have been friends with benefits for six months. We were casual friends for two years prior to hooking up, but we have gotten much closer since. So, can FWB things ever turn into real relationships, or did we blow our chance?
--Hoping
Friends-with-benefits arrangements are, to some degree, replacing dating. Unfortunately, trying to turn an FWB thing into a relationship can be like trying to return a shirt. One you've worn. For a while. You march straight up to the counter and lay the thing out. The guy at the register frowns: "Ma'am, Macy's closed six years ago. This is Chipotle now."
It's helpful to understand what anthropologist Helen Fisher and her colleagues have discovered -- that lust, love, and attachment aren't just emotions; they are motivational systems (ultimately for the purpose of reproduction and child rearing). Lust eventually wanes (which makes sense, because "Ohhh, baby" needs to give way to feeding the baby). The neurochemistry behind lust "can trigger expressions of attachment," Fisher explains. However, in men, high testosterone -- in general or from having sex -- "can reduce attachment." This is probably more likely if a man has a "high baseline level of testosterone," which is typically reflected in a strong jaw and chin, a muscular body, and dominant behavior.
Because you two were friends first and seem to care about each other, maybe you can be more than sex friends. Tell him you really enjoy hanging with him, and ask whether he'd be up for more than FWB. But take the low-pressure approach: You don't want an answer on the spot; you'd just like him to think about it. This should make you seem less desperate and possibly let him feel like having more was his idea. If he wants less, you should probably stop seeing him -- at least naked -- for a while. He may end up missing you, which could energize his interest in you in a way FWB tends not to do. (They call it "the thrill of the chase," not the thrill of "you can text any day at 2 a.m. and she'll let you come over.")
My boyfriend and I have been together for a year and a half, and we really love each other. His parents adore me and are thrilled that he might not die alone. After his mom saw us being all cuddly in the supermarket, she warned him that we may be getting in people's way or annoying them by "hanging all over each other." (We aren't doing anything dirty or gross -- just hand-holding, play wrestling, quick kisses.) She wondered whether we do this because one of us is insecure. I felt sort of offended. We're just affectionate. Most people who see us smile.
--Lovey-Dovey
There's being cuddly at the supermarket, and then there's being cuddly in a way that says, "We usually do this with whipped cream."
Even if what you're publicly displaying is affection, not foreplay, there are a number of reasons it may make onlookers uncomfortable: It's them. (They were raised to think PDA is not okay.) It's their relationship. (The more warm, cuddly, and adorbs you two are the more you remind them that their relationship temperature is about 3 degrees above "bitter divorce.") It's the wrong time and place. (They're watching you do huggy headlocks at Granny's funeral.)
You're actually onto something by being so physically demonstrative. Charles Darwin observed that expressing the physical side of an emotion -- that is, "the outward signs," like the red-faced yelling that goes with rage -- amps up the emotion. Modern research finds that he was right.
For example, clinical psychologist Joan Kellerman and her colleagues had total strangers do something lovers do -- gaze deeply into each other's eyes. Subjects who did this for just two minutes "reported significantly more feelings of attraction, interest, warmth, etc. for each other" than subjects in the "control" condition (who spent the two minutes looking down at each other's hands). Research on touch has found similar effects. The upshot? Act cuddly-wuddly and cuddly-wuddly feelings should follow.
Maybe you can science his mom into feeling better by explaining this. Consider that she may just be worried that you two are going to burn yourselves out. If you think that's part of it, you might clue her in on what the greeting cards don't tell you: Love is also a biochemical process, and a year and a half in, you're surely out of the hormonal hurricane stage.
You also might dial it down a little around her (not because you're doing anything wrong but because it's nice to avoid worrying Mumsy if you can). The reality is, we all sometimes get in other people's way when we're trying to find something at the supermarket -- organic Broccolini...grape kombucha...precancerous polyp in the girlfriend's throat.
I love my girlfriend, but the other night on the phone, I said something that really hurt her feelings. I was out with my guy friends, and one said, "Get her flowers. Girls love that stuff." I ran around in the middle of the night looking for them. Obviously, there were no florists open. I had to hit a slew of 7-Elevens. I came home with a rose and told her about my treasure hunt to find it. She loved it, and all was forgiven. For a flower? I don't get it.
--Temporary Jerk
It is a little crazy that when you love a woman, you're supposed to express it with a handful of useless weeds -- that is, "Say it with flowers" and not something nice and practical, a la "Say it with a repeating stapler."
"A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose," wrote Gertrude Stein. Sorry, Gertie. It's actually not. A rose can also be a form of information -- one that anthropologists call a "costly signal." A costly signal is a message that's more than just words -- meaning it involves an investment of time, effort, risk, and/or money, which tells the recipient that it's more likely to be sincere. So, the pointless extravagance of buying a woman flowers is exactly the point. To be willing to burn money on something so intrinsically useless suggests you're either a natural-born idiot or so in love that it makes you droolingly dim.
But -- as you might argue -- you only spent a few bucks on that rose. Well, context counts. Research by evolutionary social psychologist Yohsuke Ohtsubo and his colleagues points out that buying just one flower will make you look cheap -- but only when "a more costly option (is) available" (like if you're at a florist). Otherwise, effort counts. In other words, if you only bring your woman a single rose, casually mention that you got it by crawling over broken glass to 7-Eleven while dodging gunfire from the Albanian mob. (Or that you at least tried Rite Aid, CVS, and 12 other 7-Elevens first.)
I'm a woman in my late 20s. Guys don't have car crashes looking at me, but I am pretty and have a nice boyfriend. I have three drop-dead gorgeous girlfriends who are perpetually single, but not by choice. I realized that they all do two things: complain that things never work out with a guy and constantly post stunning selfies on Facebook. One takes a daily pic in her car, showing how hot she looks. When I mentioned this to my boyfriend, he said guys want a hot girlfriend but they don't want one who does that. Please explain.
--Wondering
Sure, getting other people to like you starts with liking yourself -- just not to the point where you're dozing off in front of the mirror.
Selfie posting, not surprisingly, has been associated with narcissism -- being a self-absorbed, self-important user with a lack of empathy and a sucking need for admiration. But consider that there are nuances to what sort of person posts selfies and why. There are those who post selfies in keeping with their interests -- like "here's today's outfit!" (because they're into fashion) or "here I am about to go over Niagara Falls in a barrel" (because they are into adventure travel and are also kind of an idiot).
Though these "stuff I like!" shots include a picture of the person, they're ultimately about some hobby or interest they have. And then there's the person -- like these women you mention -- who simply posts endless vanity shots, like "it's Monday, and I'm still alive, and aren't I pretty? #WeAllHaveOurCrossToBear"
Clinical psychologist Christopher T. Barry and his colleagues found that posting a lot of "physical appearance selfies" is associated with a subtype of narcissism, "vulnerable narcissism." Vulnerable narcissism involves self-worth that's "highly contingent" on what others think, "hypervigilance" about rejection, and a tendency to manufacture a facade to protect against rejection. ("Grandiose narcissism" is the louder, more domineering subtype most of us think of as narcissism.)
Yes, like ice cream and medical marijuana, narcissism comes in different flavors. Though you can probably feel for the vulnerable narcissists, they also come up short on empathy. They just do it more quietly. Chances are, guys who want more than a hookup or arm candy see a slew of "Worship me!" selfies as a generic sign of narcissism -- and a big flashing danger sign telling them to look elsewhere. As the saying goes, "beauty fades..." but unempathetic is forever.
I was a married man for a long time, but about a year ago, after grieving my divorce, I got into friends-with-benefits things with two different women. (Neither knows about the other.) We like each other, but we don't call or text regularly or discuss whether we're seeing anybody else. Well, last month, I met this great woman and felt a real romantic connection. We haven't slept together because I want to end these FWB things first. My question is: How do I do that? What does a woman who isn't a girlfriend but has been having semi-regular sex with a man want to hear that will not hurt her?
--Concerned
The really terrible breakups are those where the other party just won't let go -- like when the gym chain or cable company makes you talk with three "retention specialists" and show the lease to your new place 6,343 miles away, with no access to transportation but a rickety footbridge over a 400-foot chasm.
However, most helpfully, Paul Mongeau, who researches communication in relationships, finds that there are three different levels of friends-with-benefits relationships: "true friends," "network opportunism," and "just sex." "True friends" mean something to each other. They know and care about each other and also have sex. "Network opportunists" are a step down from true friends. They're people in the same social group (or "network") who aren't really friends but are friendly enough to go home together if neither meets anybody better at the bar. And lowest on the FWB ladder is what you have -- the "just sex" thing. The just sex-ers don't hate each other or anything, but, as the researchers explain, for them, the "friend" in FWB "is a misnomer." They're in each other's life for one reason: to be sexual grout.
It bodes well for the woman you want that you care so much about being kind to the women you don't. But consider that you probably have deeper and more frequent conversations with the guy who makes your burrito at Chipotle. So, for these women, losing their "just sex" man will be inconvenient and annoying but probably not as heartbreaking as needing to find a new plumber. Just politely inform them that you have to end it because you've started seeing somebody (and not just for 45 minutes at 1 in the morning).