My boyfriend travels a lot, and when he's away, he wants to video call over FaceTime. Well, I look absolutely hideous on FaceTime, and I don't want to do it. And really, who doesn't look scary on FaceTime? Megan Fox? Scarlett Johansson? I get that he loves me and knows what I really look like, but I always feel depressed and self-conscious after I get off our video calls.

--FaceTime Hater

Of course it's what's on the inside that really counts, which is why men's magazines so often run glossy spreads of stout, good-hearted older women crocheting afghans for nursing home patients.

FaceTime should be renamed UglyfaceTime for what it does to a person's features, and especially to a woman's (in lumps, jowls, and eye baggery not apparent in photos). While the camera is said to add 10 pounds, FaceTime adds 10 miles of bad road. The good news: You look just like a movie star! The bad news: It's the zombie Orson Welles.

Friends will remind you that your boyfriend loves you and tell you you're being silly (read: shallow). Some will offer helpful suggestions, like "It's all about the lighting!" They aren't wrong. I suggest avoiding light entirely, like by FaceTiming from a dark closet. Another popular chant: "Wear concealer!" My recommendation: Le Burlap Bag Over Le Head.

Right now, countless readers are getting ready to email me to tell me I'm an idiot. (Hold your fire!) First, male sexuality is highly visual -- in a way female sexuality is not. And then there's what psychologists call "the contrast effect" -- how the attractiveness of someone or something changes, depending on the "neighborhood": how attractive or unattractive the nearby alternatives are. So, you could be an easy 8.5 in Smalltownville and come to Hollywood -- aka Mecca for every high school's golden-blondiest cheerleader -- and find yourself struggling to hang on to a 5.8.

The contrast effect even holds true for somebody we love. In research by evolutionary psychologists Douglas Kenrick and Steven Neuberg, when men in relationships were exposed to pictures of very attractive women, they perceived their partner as less attractive -- and (eek) felt less satisfied with and less committed to her.

Obviously, looks aren't all that matter. But sexual attraction naturally wanes over time. Best not to help it along with a "just keep your chins up!" attitude about FaceTiming. This isn't to say you should leave your boyfriend visually starved. You can keep him well-supplied with images of you that you can control: selfies.

These selfies could even be used for a "foreign correspondent" approach to FaceTime -- keeping the camera on a still photo of yourself (like when a CNN reporter is on an audio-only connection from a tent outside of Jalalabad). This will allow you to focus on your boyfriend instead of on another man -- one with the medical training to make your cavernous nasolabial folds look less like the place they'll find Jimmy Hoffa, your dad's coin collection, and three hikers who disappeared in 1976.

When my boyfriend and I are on the phone, he won't sign off with "I love you" if his guy friends are around. Meanwhile, these guys have met me, and most are in relationships. So what's with his cool act? I know he loves me. Why be embarrassed to say it publicly?

--Emotionally Honest

There are a lot of ways a man can show that he loves you. Does it really have to be "Hold on, guys, while I give my balls to my girlfriend!"?

Women often think it's a bad sign if a man won't go all "wuvvywoo poopielou" in front of his bros. This worry is understandable -- because it's no biggie (and actually kind of a status thing) for a woman to do that in front of the girls. But sex differences researchers Anne Campbell and Joyce Benenson point out that women -- the caregivers of the species -- evolved to bond through sharing vulnerabilities. This is how they show other women that they aren't a threat. Men, however, evolved to be in a constant battle for dominance. They succeed socially by displaying toughness, not giggling behind their hands like Japanese schoolgirls (but with facial hair and Hello Kitty wallet chains).

In other words, when you love a man, you show it by not demanding that his phone calls with you end in a social hanging. He'll feel better, and you'll ultimately respect him more. Sure, like other women, you may believe you want the ever mushy-ready "sensitive man" -- until you start despising him for his compliance and dump him for someone a little more action hero. Those guys are men of few words -- words like "I'll be back" and not "Yes, dear, I'll be back with a box of super-plus extra-absorbency unscented."

My boyfriend is going to a dinner out of town to get an award for a film he made, and he didn't invite me. When I told him I felt excluded, he said that he was embarrassed because his parents are paying for his flight and he has to stay with a friend. I get it; he does wonderful work, but he's still struggling financially. Still, if the tables were turned -- if I were getting an award -- I would at least tell him I wish he could come.

--Upset

There are a lot of things Martin Scorsese has been known to say, but one of them is not, "I want you by my side at this festival, and I only have to dig through the trash for 8,234 more cans to make that happen."

It isn't surprising that your boyfriend -- as a man -- is more sensitive about being...as they say...brokeahontas than you would be if the (awards dinner) tables were turned. As I frequently explain, men and women aren't just physically different; they evolved to have corresponding psychological differences. A biggie comes out of how there was a far greater potential cost to an ancestral woman from any sex act (pregnancy and a kid to feed) compared with the cost to a man: "Gee, that was a whole teaspoonful of sperm!"

So female psychology evolved to push women to look for "providers" -- men with access to resources and a willingness to share them. That's why women go for guys who show signs of wealth, like a temperature-controlled nursery for their sports cars. Wealth is a cue to the all-important ability to bring home the bison. But in ancestral times, we couldn't hang on to stuff -- including food -- because we didn't have refrigerators, let alone houses to keep them in. There was just the meat you could eat before it went bad and your man's ability to hunt it down. So what does it for a lot of women is potential -- signs that a man could soon be, uh, dragging home tasty dead animals (probably shrink-wrapped, unless their guy is good with a crossbow).

You seem to be one of those women. (You get that they don't give out film awards to just any doof who shoots a cat video on their iPhone.) If you do believe in your boyfriend, tell him -- regularly, in detail. If he gets that you're proud of him and that you'd be happier eating hot dogs on a bench with him than dining with some corporate drone at Le Whatever, he's less likely to feel he's failing you by being undercapitalized. This should help him be more inclusive in the future -- at least emotionally -- when that "historic location" where he'll be staying is the sagging love seat where his buddy lost his virginity in 1992.

I'm 25, and my boyfriend is 29. He is super-sweet, is a good person, and treats me really well. However, recently, he told my roommate that she has "nice cheekbones." I didn't say anything, but I think this was inappropriate. It's not like "I like your shirt" or whatever. It's about another woman's beauty. Can I tell him I don't want him complimenting other women in the future?

--Hurt

It says something when a man notices a nice view -- like that it's only a matter of time before he and that pretty orange sunset are sneaking out to his car to have sex.

Okay, it's possible that "nice cheekbones" is man-speak for "Those are some hypno-hooters you got there, honey." But maybe he was just trying to say something nice. Or maybe he was mesmerized in a bad way -- like "Whoa...are those forceps marks?" -- and he noticed her noticing and ducked for verbal cover.

As for why you find this upsetting, consider that our emotions aren't just feelings; they tell us what to do. The disturbing emotion of jealousy, for example, is what evolutionary psychologist David Buss calls a "coping device" for "mate retention" -- an alarm system that helps us guard against being cheated on. However, sometimes this alarm system can be a little oversensitive and in need of recalibration -- like the one at my parents' house that used to go off whenever my uncle cut one in the den.

In deciding whether you should say something, context matters. You describe your boyfriend as attentive, "super-sweet," and "a good person." If he isn't regularly jawing on about other women's looks, maybe it's a little premature to turn your relationship into a repressive regime. Model your free speech policy on that of Iran or North Korea and it's only a matter of time before you're in a date-night rut: "So...same old, same old...dinner and a cavity search?"

I'm a 39-year-old guy, and I just met the most amazing woman, but she's going through a divorce. My best friend said to never date somebody while they're divorcing, because they're crazy and emotionally unavailable. He says you need to wait for two years afterward. Well, I really like this woman, and she likes me. If I dated her now, would I just be a rebound?

--Bad Waiter

There are clues to where on the divorce spectrum someone falls, like whether she makes offhand remarks along the lines of "I wish him well, but we weren't a good match" or "I wish I could leave him tied up in a clearing so something would eat him."

There is something to be said for waiting periods, whether you're mentally ill and shopping for an Uzi or hoping to live happily ever after with someone who might not be entirely recovered from her previous attempt. But the blanket "wait two years!" advice is silly and probably comes out of a misconstruing of some research finding. (Also, as an epidemiologist friend frequently points out to me, these findings tell us how something seems to affect most people; however, there are important individual differences that get lost...like that tiny line about potential side effects: "Oh, by the way, 1 percent of the subjects ended up wearing all their teeth on a necklace.")

Still, unless this woman and her not-quite-ex-husband got married a few months ago because they were super-drunk and standing near each other in Vegas, there's a chance she'll believe she's ready to get involved before she actually is. Whether it makes sense to date her now becomes a question of risk analysis. Plug in the variables you know, like the ugliness level of her divorce, whether she starts every other sentence with "my ex...", and whether she seems to understand where she went wrong (and take responsibility for her part in it). Factor in her fabulousness and your level of risk tolerance -- how willing and able you are to deal if, a year in, she apologizes after realizing that she just needed a nice man to put Band-Aids on her ouchies.

Even if it seems unwise to date her right now, you can keep a foot in the game by seeing her regularly -- like once a month -- while keeping the temperature on low. Stick to daytime dates -- short, bright light, no alcohol -- and use abstinence-only measures that have been found to be highly effective, such as wearing Green Lantern Underoos. (As a bonus, these would double as incentive to avoid texting while driving and ending up the talk of the ambulance bay for two weeks.)

I'm a woman just out of a 13-year relationship, and dating isn't going so well. My roommate says I need to stop blatantly pursuing men -- texting first, initiating plans, etc. -- and instead flirt, hang back, and "seem busy." That just seems so archaic -- starting a relationship on the manipulative premise of feminine game-playing. It's 2016. Why isn't authenticity appreciated?

--Forgive Me, I'm Real

Ideally, you'll make a guy ache with longing -- but more along the lines of "I wish she'd text me back" than "I wish she'd put down those binoculars and get out of my bushes."

In other words, you might rethink "authenticity" -- letting the true you (or rather, the truly impatient you) shine through. Consider acting like the more effective you, as you surely would for a job interview -- rather than showing up in sweats and bragging that your character reference is actually your pot dealer and that "Mr. Bradley," your "former employer," is the neighbor's Labradoodle.

Chances are you've been "blatantly pursuing" because, like many women, you confuse "equal" with "the same." However, there's substantial evidence from evolutionary psychology research that women evolved to be the choosier sex and that men co-evolved to expect this -- and see female aloofness as a sign of value. So a more productive strategy for you would be what social psychologist Robert Cialdini calls "the scarcity principle." Cialdini explains that the less available something is, the more we value and want it. Not because it's better. Because FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) and the regret we'd feel if we let that happen jack us into a motivational state -- a panic to get whatever's in short supply.

But don't take my word for it. For three weeks, try something new: flirting and waiting instead of chasing and pouncing. Ultimately, it's best to start a relationship on the premise that actually allows it to start -- coming off more like the appointment-only store with a single avant-garde dress than the kind with a big yellow sign in the window: "Everything in the store, $15, including the dog."

I'm in a new relationship with the sweetest, most generous girl, but I'm hesitant to let her do nice stuff for me. In my previous relationship, every single nice thing my ex did was held against me later. I can hear her now: "Remember that time I brought you food at work? All the way across town?" Eventually, I'd wince anytime she did anything for me. However, my new girlfriend seems so happy to make me food or run an errand for me. Still, I feel uneasy. I keep waiting for her to turn into my ex and present me with a list of what I owe her.

--Bad History

Aww, a relationship with an accounts receivable department.

Your ex's human abacus approach -- running a relationship on the "Hey, what's in it for me?" model -- doesn't bode well for happily ever after, and not just because it makes it hard to tell your girlfriend apart from one of those aggressive strangers who call at dinnertime, threatening to repo your car.

Social psychologist Margaret S. Clark explains that partners are more loving and generous toward each other when a relationship runs on the "communal" model (which describes love or friendship) rather than the "exchange" model (the merchant-customer relationship). The main difference between these relationship types is in the motivations for giving and the expectations in the wake of it. You give to somebody you love -- like by giving your honey a massage -- to make her feel good; you don't wipe the lotion off your hands and then hand her a bill for $80.

Love relationships are often not entirely 50/50, and the payback from a romantic partner often comes in different ways and at a later date, and that's okay. In an exchange relationship, however, people give to get. There's careful accounting and speedy invoicing. When the mechanic fixes your bum tire, immediately after doing the work, he expects equivalent compensation -- in cold, hard cash (or plastic). You can't just kiss him on the cheek, chirp, "Thanks, cookieface!" and be on your way.

Looking back at your relationship with your ex, ask yourself something: Why did she view popping over with a cooler at lunchtime -- probably containing sandwiches and a Snapple -- like she'd brought you her left kidney? Maybe she's bean countery in all of her relationships. Or...maybe this reflects Clark's finding that people in relationships switch to an "exchange norm" when they notice that their partner is all take and take.

In your current relationship, remind yourself to credit your girlfriend for who she is -- which you do by observing her actions and attitude -- instead of fearing who she might be. You should also make sure you're holding up your part of the giving. But give for the right reason: to make her happy -- and not because you can't bear to hear another woman yelling, "Owe, owe, owe!" during sex.

I used to have a terrible temper. My girlfriend never experienced it, because I did major therapy before meeting her. Now, when I get upset, I step back, consider whether my beef is legit, and then think about how I can present it calmly. My girlfriend, who gets frustrated that I can't always discuss things immediately, says I "bottle up" my feelings.

--Formerly Volcanic

Rarely do you hear someone say, "So, I ran the issue by my therapist, made a list of pros and cons, meditated on it...and then went out and put a bat through the guy's windshield."

Admirably, instead of continuing to lose your temper, you got it a little red leather collar, and now you just walk it out of the room on a matching red leash. This doesn't mean you "bottle up" your feelings. You're simply giving reason first crack at your problems -- which doesn't exactly come naturally. Psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky explain that we have two thinking systems: a fast-responding emotional system and a slower rational system. Your rational system does come around eventually -- typically, just in time to grab a broom and dustpan to sweep up the pieces of the job or relationship that your trigger-happy emotional system just exploded.

Because relationships are happier when those in them feel understood and appreciated, it seems you need to give your girlfriend the details on where you were and how far you've come. (Whaddya know, you didn't spend those court-mandated anger management sessions with headphones on listening to Metallica.) Explaining this to her should help her understand that when you're mulling things over, she isn't waiting; she's benefiting. Maybe you'll get speedier at the reasoning process in time, but rushing you out of your cool-out corner is a bit like saying, "Hey, let's make conflict resolution more like drunk dialing!"