I hit it off with this guy I met on Match.com. We've been dating for a month and slept together twice. He said he'd delete his Match profile because things were going so well, so I deleted mine. Recently, a mutual friend told me he'd just gone on Tinder. I'm super upset, and though we didn't have the exclusivity talk, it seemed implied.
--Dumbfounded
Okay, so it seems he didn't quite get around to mailing out the formal invitations to the funeral for his freedom.
Now, the guy may be an out-and-out lying cad, cooing commitment-y things to you that he never intended to follow through on. However, it's also possible that he was legit enthusiastic in that moment when he offered to delete Match -- confusing the buzzy high of a love thing that's brand-new with a love thing that's really right.
Neuroscientist Wolfram Schultz discovered that things that are new to us -- people, relationships, pleasure-producing substances -- activate our brain's reward circuitry and its chemical messenger boy, dopamine, in a way things we're used to do not. (That very first bite of chocolate cake is always the tastiest, most chocogasmic.)
In fact, Schultz's research suggests that "novel rewards" may be two to three times more dopamine-elevating than delishy stuff we've previously experienced. Basically, once we've tried something, even if we really, really enjoyed it the first time (hot diggity!), it becomes less motivating to us (kinda lukewarm diggity).
This motivational downshift comes out of how dopamine neurons are, in a sense, fortuneteller cells; they predict how rewarding things or situations will be. Dopamine, contrary to what countless books and articles contend, is not a "pleasure chemical." It does not generate a heroin rush-type euphoria. It's stimulating. It drives wanting and seeking, motivating us to explore new stuff that might enhance our ability to pass on our genes.
After dopamine calculates the difference between the initial high a thing gave us when it was new and its current level of more meh rewardingness, it can push us to go out and chase the initial high -- seek some new provider, and then another and another: "Sure, I could have a stable adult relationship -- or I could continue my groundbreaking research into The Tramp Stamps Of Tinder."
This is not an excuse for this guy's lack of forthcomingness but a possible explanation for why he said he'd delete Match but then signed right up for Tinder. It's also possible the powerful human fear of regret is at play. Going exclusive with you would mean waving bye-bye to the rest of womankind. It's possible that he and his penis feel the need for a second opinion.
The problem from your end is that your wanting to go exclusive with him is the dating version of the impulse purchase. A month in, you don't have enough information to judge his character, see whether he's boyfriend-grade, and see whether there's, uh, brand loyalty. You should be just starting to see who he is and reserving judgment -- much as you'd like to believe that he's a wild dude seeking domestication, kind of like a lion knocking on the door of the zoo: "Got any vacancies, chief?"
I'm a woman who wants a serious relationship, and a happily married friend is urging me to go on Jdate. I'm not Jewish and not interested in converting. Wouldn't people be mad I'm on there?
--Husband-Seeking
Men on FarmersOnly would be understandably annoyed if I posted a profile there, as my idea of farming is keeping a houseplant alive for more than a year.
But this site is called Jdate, not JewsOnly. Sure, some will be annoyed to find a nice non-Jewish girl like you there, but there are others -- like atheists from Jewish backgrounds and not-very-observant Jews -- who might not find it a deal breaker. Uh, that is, until they register the reality of inviting mom, dad, and bubbe over for Christmakkah.
Cognitive neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga estimates that 98 percent of our brain's activity is subconscious -- including some of our decision-making. A man seeking a relationship can have his short-term mating standards triggered without his knowing it while going through women's profiles online. Not exactly surprisingly, evolutionary psychologists David Buss and David Schmitt find men in short-term mode are prone to lowering the bar on "their mate preference standards ... across an array of mate qualities, including personality, intelligence, and even attractiveness."
Religion is surely one of these. Recognize this risk from being on Jdate as a non-J. If you do end up dating a Jewish guy, do your best, as early as possible, to suss out whether questions like "But what religion will the children be?" would lead to his ultimately following the advice of poet Dylan, uh, Thomasenstein: "Do not go gentile into that good night."
My girlfriend, who'd been traveling, lost track of what day it was and was surprised when I showed up on the usual night I come cook her dinner. She was happy to see me but said she needed to finish this one "urgent work email." How nice. Dinner would get cold while she took forever. Instead of getting started in the kitchen, I sat down angrily on the couch. "What's wrong?" she asked. I said, "I'll just sit here till you're ready!" She got angry, saying that I should have just asked her how long she'd be or told her I felt bad. She then went on about how I have a "toxic" habit of this sort of "passive-aggressive" behavior, and I need to stop "acting out" before it ruins our relationship. I love her and don't want to lose her. Help!
--Doghouse
There will sometimes be reasons you are unable to communicate using the spoken word: Your jaw is wired shut. You are gagged with duct tape. A wizard has turned you into a cocker spaniel.
Otherwise, when you'd like another person to do something, it's best not to express this to them in code: "I want you to meet my needs -- right after you guess what they are!"
Passive-aggressiveness is a kind of coded communication -- a form of "indirect speech," which is a way of saying something without flat-out saying it. The term "passive-aggressive" was coined by a military psychologist, Colonel William Menninger, during World War II. He used it to describe soldiers who -- instead of saying no to a direct order (hello, ugly consequences!) -- wiggled out through "passive measures" including "procrastination, inefficiency, and passive obstructionism."
Menninger's term was useful in military memos because, as historian Christopher Lane puts it, the army couldn't exactly issue a directive against "pouting." However, there was no research to support it as anything more than a tactic in a certain situation -- as opposed to a "personality disorder" a chronic, genetically driven pattern of maladaptive thinking and behavior.
Yet, in the 1950s, a group of psychiatrists writing the mental disorders bible, the DSM (edition I), took a big, unscientific leap. They willy-nilly added passive-aggressiveness to the list of personality disorders in the book -- perhaps because without an official "disorder" label (and diagnostic codes that go with), health insurance companies wouldn't pay therapists to treat it.
But consider the weaselly, "passive-aggressive" tack those soldiers took. Though their indirect approach to getting their way was militarily unhelpful, it was anything but "maladaptive" for them personally. It allowed them to avoid both court-martial and getting shot at -- or to stay in bed "sick" instead of going all "10-4!" on scrubbing the grout in the latrines with their toothbrush.
In other words, indirect communication like theirs is often adaptive, meaning highly useful -- a form of diplomacy. As I pointed out in a recent column, per psychologist Steven Pinker, it's a crafty way to communicate a potentially inflammatory message without causing offense the way baldly stating one's feelings would. For example, there's the social relationship-preserving hint about table manners, "Wow, Jason, you're really ENJOYING that risotto!" instead of the more honest "GROSS! You eat like a feral hog on roadkill!"
The thing is, avoiding causing offense can go too far, like when it's driven by a long-held and unexamined belief that you're offensive simply by existing and having needs. Understanding that, explore the root of your own passive-aggressive behavior. My guess? It's fear of conflict, or rather, of the results of conflict. Granted, at some point, it was probably protective for you to avoid conflict -- and the direct engagement that could lead to it -- like if you had a volatile and abusive parent. However, as an adult, indirect communication should be a tool you use when it suits the situation, not a behavior you robotically default to.
Consider that conflict, when expressed in healthy, noninflammatory ways, can be a positive thing -- a source for personal and collective growth and deeper relationships. But to take advantage of this after years of auto-burying your feelings, you'll need to start by articulating to yourself what you want in a particular situation. Next, while ignoring the protests of your fears, express your needs and/or feelings to the other person with healthy directness: "Hey, can you guesstimate how many minutes till you're done with your work?" and maybe add "I have a special dinner planned, and I don't want it to get cold."
Admittedly, some conflicts end up in gridlock, which means you won't always get what you want. However, you're far more likely to get your needs met if you don't just fester with resentment or turn every relationship interaction into an intricate game of charades: "Sorry, honey. Still don't get it. Are you angry or doing a rain dance?"
I'm a 29-year-old woman. My boyfriend of a year is a wonderful guy. I've always been a jealous person -- very insecure about whether a guy really cares and is being faithful. I ruined my last relationship (with a nice, decent guy) by snooping in his email -- finding nothing. I've started seeing a therapist, who tells me I am "anxiously attached." She's helping me work on this. My boyfriend suggested I also write you to see whether he could do anything to help.
--Panicky
Many people find it comforting to believe there's some benevolent force watching over those they love. You, on the other hand, favor a private detective with a fleet of drones who will also supply you with the video.
Your therapist's assessment that you're "anxiously attached" comes out of research on our "attachment behavioral system," our emotional framework that guides how secure or insecure we feel about our bonds with others. According to the late British psychiatrist John Bowlby, we each have internalized working models -- basically, expectations from childhood experience (with genes also playing a role) -- for how much we can count on others to stick by us and respond to our needs.
Being "anxiously attached" seems to result from your mom or other early caregiver being intermittently cold or otherwise inconsistently comforting. It typically leads to needy, clingy, hyper-vigilant behavior, driven by fears of rejection and abandonment.
Though the clingaramousness and Nancy Drew tactics of the anxiously attached can seem like ways of acting out, they're actually attempts to get a romantic partner to ramp up their level of commitment -- or at least offer reassurance about their commitment.
Interestingly, it seems that the reassurance doesn't have to come in spoken-word form. Psychologist Brooke C. Feeney found that (in the context of a close relationship) "affectionate touch ... was an effective buffer against jealous feelings" for relationship partners at times when they were experiencing high levels of anxious attachment.
In Feeney's study, the "affectionate touch" just involved one partner putting his or her arm around the other's shoulder. But presumably, hugs, hair-petting, face-caressing, and other forms of affectionate touch from your boyfriend would also help with the jealousy -- shrinking the green monster to something more gecko-sized.
Sending the message physically like this takes advantage of how, according to research in "embodied cognition," our body and actions -- independent of conscious thought -- are surprisingly powerful and efficient tools for changing our habitual emotional reactions. (See my "science-help" book, "Unf*ckology," for more on this.)
Best of all, being regularly cuddly-wuddly with one's partner isn't exactly an odious chore. It's surely preferable to the alternative -- a relationship that feels like one long interrogation, though with better lighting and decorative accents from Bed, Bath, & I'd Better Not Catch Your Eyeballs Crawling Up My Sister.
I'm a 38-year-old single man. There's this very pretty, very nice female trainer I see at my gym. I'd ask her out except that she has a huge tattoo of a diamond on her neck. Ugh. Total deal breaker. If it were a hidden tattoo (leg, hip, etc.), I'd deal. But I just can't imagine myself or any guy bringing a girl with a huge neck tat home to meet the parents. Why would a woman do this?
--Hate Ink
A tattoo is a flesh billboard -- one that sends different messages to different people. For example, there are those tattoos Westerners get in Chinese, which are sometimes deeply profound ancient sayings, such as "Lost ticket pays full day rate for parking."
Tattoos are now more socially acceptable than ever. Three in 10 Americans have them, according to a 2015 Harris Poll. As for why, people often explain their tattoo or tattoos as a celebration or remembrance of something: "And there was my Everclear era in my early 20s -- memorialized by this 'No regerts' tattoo."
However, evolutionary researcher Haley Dillon and her colleagues reviewed findings from cross-cultural research on tattooing and concluded that there are two main underlying motivations (subconscious evolved motivations) for people to go all human canvas. People get tats as symbols -- interestingly, of either group membership or individuality or both. And they do it as a form of "costly signaling" -- advertising to others that they are so crazy-healthy that they don't need to worry about the health risks (which include bacterial infection and death, a rare serious bummer).
Each of these underlying motivations is what's called a "fitness display," promoting a tattooee's excellence as a mate or cooperator, which should ultimately enhance their chances of reproductive success. Well, that's the idea, anyway. You happen to favor virgin neck, which can lead to some awkwardness in asking a woman out: "Hey, can I treat you to dinner sometime -- followed by two years of laser tattoo removal?"
I'm a 30-something woman questioning the long-term viability of my relationship. I work for a nonprofit in a community with a high level of volunteerism. My boyfriend is a therapist, so I think he wants to help others. He's kind and thoughtful toward me and his friends. However, he does no volunteer work or charitable giving. He'll sometimes offer a lower rate for people who can't afford therapy, but he'll qualify it by saying he needs to get people talking about him to generate more business. I'm put off that his ego and career advancement are motivating the only signs of charity I see from him.
--Disturbed Altruist
As you see it, he's got a charity deficit on his human report card, and you'd like to fix that.
Boyfriend: "It's date night. What are we doing, sexy?"
You: "I thought we'd go spear trash in the park."
You, as a person who values charitableness, seem to have a pretty uncharitable view of your boyfriend. You see him as stingy, cash-grubbing, and egocentric simply because his job is a for-profit thing and making money and getting noticed are important to him. The reality is, therapist burnout is a serious concern, because it's emotionally draining to be a big ear for other people's anguish all day long. Meanwhile, sure, you work at a nonprofit, but -- just guessing here -- you probably spend your days cradling a phone receiver, not dying orphans from the developing world.
It's also important to rethink the notion that those who do volunteer work are giving selflessly -- getting nothing in return. In fact, if you're sacrificing for somebody related to you, it benefits your genetic line -- possibly helping at least some of the genes you share totter off into the next generation. If the person you're helping is unrelated, you'll likely get reputational props from others witnessing your generosity. And research by psychologist Sonja Lyubomirsky and her colleagues finds that there seems to be considerable feel-good in doing good. Participants in her research who did five acts of kindness in a day (like you surely would while, say, volunteering at a soup kitchen) experienced a big bump in their own happiness.
It's reasonable to want a good, kind, generous partner -- but maybe you already have one. Maybe the actual problem here is that you have a rigid idea of what generosity looks like. Be open to understanding where your boyfriend's coming from, which starts with asking him about his values (and sharing yours) instead of guessing and convicting him in absentia.
Also, just because he doesn't take the initiative on volunteer work doesn't mean he's opposed to it. Maybe invite him to join you. He might go just to be with you or to please you. But it's possible he'll find it rewarding and want to go back. If, on the other hand, he's all "Screw poor people!" well, maybe you two don't belong together.
I'm a 34-year-old woman, and I've been with my boyfriend for three years. I've noticed a weird pattern. Guys looking for a fling get MORE interested instead of less when I tell them I'm in a relationship. I don't understand. Even if I were willing to step out on my boyfriend (which I'm not), why would any guy want a cheater?
--Committed
You're saying: "I have a boyfriend. Get lost." They're hearing: "Cool! I can get sex without the crying, the tampon runs, and the map on the nightstand for the precise placement of each of the 300 throw pillows."
Evolutionary researchers Susan M. Hughes and Marissa Harrison found that women in committed relationships (compared with men) were more likely to reveal their relationship status to a potential hookup partner. They speculate that it "may appeal to a man's evolved psychological preference for short-term mating, which increases his chance of reproduction without commitment."
Of course, men these days aren't consciously looking for "reproduction" with their hookup, but birth control is "evolutionarily novel." In other words, the psychological operating system that's driving all of us today is, shall we say, old-school. It evolved to solve ancestral mating and survival problems, so it's sometimes a bit mismatched with the world we live in today. For example, our genes operate on the principle that having sex -- whether it's relationship sex or hit-it-and-quit-it sex -- leads to reproduction, not really nice dividends for stockholders of condom companies.
Again, a guy in hookup mode isn't reflecting on these psychological underpinnings. As he sees it, he gets all of the sexytime fun but nobody hands him the usual bill...which is to say there are jobs women give their lover -- "Get naked!" -- and jobs they give their boyfriend: "Get into this 'Proud Cat Daddy' T-shirt!"
