Remy Richard's Blog

Settling: Up or Down?

The latest article I’ve read about the dating scene left me exhausted and inexplicably sad.

Long and winding through territory you don’t expect to cover at it’s outset, All the Single Ladies by Kate Bolick for The Atlantic, is to me, less of a news article and more of a personal journal entry.

One quote in particular struck me. “Increasingly, the new dating gap–where women are forced to choose between deadbeats and players–trumps all else, in all socioeconomic brackets.”

I’m really fascinated by this idea that women aren’t just settling down–in some cases they are just settling.  Or as it is called in many articles over the past few years “the decline of men”.

Factually, empirically, women’s stars seem to be rising while men are experiencing setbacks. Of course, anecdotally your mileage may vary.  More women are attending college and median wages for males have fallen 32% since 1973 while women’s wages have grown 44% since 1970.  “Nearly three-quarters of the 7.5 million jobs lost in the depths of the recession were lost by men, making 2010 the first time in American history that women made up the majority of the workforce. “

What all these sad statistics mean is that it’s harder and harder for women, at all ages and stages of life, to find equitable partners. Which is what my single friends and I have been feeling for quite some time now.

Despite what I write and read, I know there is no such thing as a perfect man. I’m so far from perfect myself that I think it would be more stressful than sexy to live with a perfect man anyway.

But more and more I see my female friends and acquaintances with men that only make me scratch my head in confusion. Why are they with this guy? I think that the best relationships are made when your partner’s strengths can support your weaknesses and vice versa. But when your partner can be objectively rated below you in every category…that’s just dead weight to me. Let’s put it this way, if I’m smarter than you, more social than you, more attractive than you, make more money than you, have more education than you, have better long term prospects than you, etc, etc, etc…then I guess you better be pretty fucking funny to make up the difference.

It used to be that you took all of your qualities, interior and exterior, and came up with an aggregate score. You were a six or an eight or a three or whatever. And that was the range of person that you generally wound up with. Maybe you were an eight in attractiveness and he was a six, but he was a nine in income and you were a four, so things evened out.  That’s why you saw so many vapid, empty-headed but gorgeous women with rockstars. Because rockstars took their fame and money and talent (hypothetically) and cashed them in for one trait: hotness.

But if what all of these articles is saying is true and men in general are declining, then that means that all of the average guys in the middle are missing. Because there are still those guys that seem to have it all and they are still interested in women that are at the top of their scale. The guys and girls at the bottom of the scale are also still getting together. It’s the middle that’s shrinking, but only on one side of the equation. Which means that the middle average guy who is a four can now get a perfect eight because he’s got a lot less competition. Ergo, why is she with this guy.

But somehow I don’t think that’s what all of the political pundits are talking about when they mention the shrinking middle class.

 

Casualties of Score

I’ve read a lot of books lately (and been guilty of it myself a couple of times) wherein the main male character is described as having had a lot of sexual partners, but no one that he was really committed to being with exclusively. While I understand this from the point of view that it makes his relationship with the heroine special and different from anything in his frame of reference, I sometimes wonder why this is considered such a compelling feature for a man to have.

Certainly we all want a man who knows his way around in the bedroom and realistically, hands on practice is the best way to get that, but this idea of a Casanova who is quick to love and leave any woman who knows the score is actually far more prevalent in pop culture than it is in real life.

How do I know? Science-type people told me! Research psychologist Andrew P. Smiler recently wrote a book called “Challenging Casanova: Beyond the Stereotype of the Promiscuous Young Male” and debunked the myth of men only in it for a quick lay.

He says that research shows that “about 15 percent of guys have three or more partners in any given 12-month span…So there are definitely some guys out there who are doing it–but it’s really a small percentage of guys.” Three partners a year seems pretty low, since in television, books and movies portray these characters as leaving piles of scorned women in the wakes. Not to mention the media hand-wringing and rending of garments regarding the “youth hook-up culture”.

But if only 15% of men are acting this way, why are so many of the men portrayed in fiction (whether on-or-off-screen) the promiscuous type?

Intellect tells me it’s for the same reason that these same fictional characters are always tall, strong, and well-endowed. No one wants to fantasize about average. And yet, I’ve read plenty of books where the heroine is a virgin. In fact, several authors seem to only write books where the woman is a virgin and the hero has plenty of experience. Even in stories where both characters have experience, the writer always seems quick to point out that the man has more (pointing finger at myself as well). Why are we compelled to do this? Is there some unwritten rule that even though it’s permissible (in some circles) for a woman to have sex outside of wedlock it’s important that she have fewer past partners than the man she finds her Happily Ever After with?

I don’t have the answers, but I think it’s a compelling question. And something I’ll consider as I start work on my next book. Until then, I’m going to stay alert for the 15% and try not to become another casualty of score. (Get it? Ha, ha!)

Original Article Here.

 

 

 

 

New Year, Old Me

Welcome to the New Year! After a lot of speculation about all things Mayan it seemed pretty touch and go for a moment there, but we have made it into 2013! But now that I’ve made it, what am I going to do with myself in the new year? And what lessons can I learn from last year from mistakes that I (hopefully) won’t have to repeat?

I won’t lie, 2012 has been a difficult year. I quit my job last year to work on writing full time and try to make my living at it and it has at times been…difficult. It is my intention in 2013 to take all of the hard won lessons I’ve learned from opening my own business (which is how I see self-publishing) and push forward in the last few months that I have given myself to make this dream happen. I may not succeed, but at least it won’t be because I didn’t put in the time or effort.

But what chances to I really have of succeeding? According to a study by the University of Scranton only 8% of people who make a New Year’s resolution are successful in completing it. I don’t know much about math, but I don’t’ care for those odds. On the other hand, those that explicitly make resolutions are ten times more likely to reach them than those that don’t.

I think this is part of the wonderful power of words. Saying something, to yourself or out loud, makes the idea become real. Takes something that you’ve been kind of kicking around in your head, like “I want to lose weight” or “I want to spend less money and save more” and turns it into a goal that you’ve articulated. Turns it from something ephemeral into something much more tangible.

But I also think that a big part of the reason so many of us are unsuccessful in our attempts is because we sketch too big of an idea. “I want to write more” is an idea. “I want to write at least 2500 words per day” is a goal. “I want to be successful as a writer” is a hope. “I want to know, when I reach the time limit I set for myself, that I have done all that I possibly could to make my dream come true” is more descriptive but still too open to interpretation once the year gets rolling and I lose all of my introspective can-do attitude.

So that’s my New Year’s Resolution. Not to make some big, intangible, lofty goal. I resolve to spend this next week deciding exactly what I think success is for myself and what I’m willing to put in over the next six months to get there. I resolve to make my own measuring sticks instead of some arbitrary hopes or comparisons to other people. And I think that’s the best I can realistically do because after all, it might be a new year, but I’m the same old me.

Low Rate of Interest

Falling into my newest category of “Is this a thing now?” comes an article from the New York Times which must be read to be believed.

Apparently, the newest thing to ask when getting to know someone is what their credit score is. On a first date no less. Because honestly, who wants to waste time with someone who might not turn out to be perfect? Who’s got two thumbs and a 700 credit score? This girl.

This is aggravating on so many levels that I just can’t explain them all. Luckily for my past dates no one has ever asked me this question. My answer would have been a blank stare and a sharp retort. “My credit score is good enough that I can pay for my half of dinner and then never see you again.”

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t object to couples sharing financial information later on in courtship. Like when they’re discussing marriage or mingling finances in other ways. Asking on a first date would make me very afraid that I was dining with someone who was about to steal my identity.

I fear for my dating life in other ways as well. Have singe people become so paralyzed by “like” buttons and shortcuts to decision making that they are unable to make a decision about whether or not they like a human being? Because that’s what this question smacks of to me. Not that you are on this date to discover if we could like each other, but that you have a check list of reasons why you wouldn’t like me and you need to make sure I don’t fit into any of those categories before you make a time investment beyond appetizers.

In this article, the credit score is purported to be an “objective” indicator of a person’s financial past. In my opinion, we are all one terrible accident or illness away from a poor FICO score in this country, since something like 40% of delinquent debt is from unpaid medical expenses.*

There are even dating sites set up to cater to those people for whom the credit score is the end all, be all of romantic indicators, such as Datemycreditscore.com and creditscoredating.com.

The article tells the stories of hapless singles who have been blindsided by this stumbling block in their relationships. The story is the same every time, one partner is refusing to move forward with the other until the credit score is improved. The timing is anywhere from the first date to serious discussions of marriage. Kind of a subtextual* “for richer or poorer–unless it turns out to be poorer.”

While I disagree with the phrasing certainly, the whole credit score question does bring up a good point. In these difficult economic times, when so many of our young college graduates are starting their careers and dating lives with such a heavy debt burden and poor prospects, what is the responsibility of a person in a serious relationship to pick up those pieces? Does the reason why ever matter or is it just the number?

I believe (having never been tested in this regard) that I would wholeheartedly agree to make payments against debt incurred for a medical expense or education. I’m less sure where I stand on credit card debt for a partner that was racked up before I knew him.

With student loans of my own, it’s very easy to understand that as young adults we make decisions without understanding their consequences. But how much burden should I bear for a partners terrible decisions? I attended a state school because that was what I could afford, even with loans and scholarships. My younger brother was able to attend a middle-elite private school because he was at the end of the line and my parents had a lot more disposable income to help him. Even with their assistance he owes more than me in student loans by a factor of tens. Yet we make roughly the same income. Should our future life partners both smilingly agree to be responsible for those decisions even though the amount is significantly higher for my brother’s loans?

So while my knee jerk reaction is to say this is a ridiculous question, I guess that for someone who knows that they are unwilling to take on someone else’s debt, it is valid to express that early and often. The first date still feels too soon to me though. I can definitely say that asking it alone would lower my rate of interest.

*Factoid taken from sketchy internets and not verified. Repeat at your own risk!

*Subtextual is not a word…yet.

The Misadventures of Miss Advised

So Bravo has gone back to the drawing board and come up with a new series that isn’t The Real Housewives of Somewhere-Better-than-where-you-live. But if the reviews are to be believed, that wasn’t such a good idea. The show follows three women who are supposedly experts in the fields of sex and relationships. It is unclear how rigorous the tests were for becoming an expert. I can only believe that they have had a lot of sex and a lot of relationships. Not necessarily at the same time.

Bravo’s explanation of the first season is as follows: These single relationship experts can’t seem to practice what they preach as Amy Laurent in New York, Emily Morse in San Francisco, and Julia Allison in Los Angeles struggle to stay afloat in the deep end of the dating pool.

For full disclosure, let me say that I have not been able to make it through a full episode (Monday nights at 10/9c on Bravo!). But I have seen some clips and short pieces during the commercials of better programming – and what I saw did not inspire me to watch what happened. In fact, it inspired me to wonder why I am still single if this is my competition.

These women more closely resemble the worst of romance book heroines than they do self-sufficient, intelligent, 30-something women. My emphasis of their age is not to imply that they are too old to find husbands, but rather that they are too old to consider marriage as the only tool for validating their existences. The reason they were chosen for this “reality” show is presumably that they have thriving careers (one is a popular radio d.j. and at least one of the others is a columnist). Why, then is finding a man the most important thing in their lives?

I fear for the people who are listening to and perhaps following their advice if this is the real story and not just fodder for a television show. It’s always been my opinion that the most attractive people are the ones that have interests outside of snagging a mate. They, at the very least, have something to talk about over dinner other than carefully curated collections of must haves that a potential mate should possess.

At their most charming they gush to the camera about their hard and fast rules of dating only to turn around and break them in their own lives. And just before I changed the channel, one of them (Julia Allison) was talking about how reasonable a 73-point checklist was for finding a man.

What I love about romance books at their best are smart and sassy heroines who find a man who is just as wonderful and they fit into each other’s lives. I don’t think a story about a woman who is out to find a man—any man—is compelling in the slightest. And it’s not good T.V. either.

Progress Report

Progress Report

I never wanted my blog to become some place where I posted a new musing a month and then the rest of the entries were about ‘the newest from Remy!’ There’s plenty of stuff I want to say about relationships and finding love and all of the confusion and joy that goes along with it that doesn’t fit somewhere inside a novel. Or if it does someday, then I’ll remember how this time in my life felt. Because as I’ve written and published a few things, I’ve realized that even though steamy passages about sex may sell one copy, it’s ultimately how relatable the main characters are and how they overcome the obstacles that I (the author) put in their way that have people recommending that their friends buy a second copy.

But I’ve kind of been in a sophomore slump of a sort. Of a sort because my second book is out and done and I’m turning my attention forward. But I feel bombarded with ideas and the pressure to create something new, better, and different is kind of debilitating to me. So I’ve decided to implement a “keeping them honest” segment (that’s on some late night news show I believe, chime in if you know which). Basically a once a month post for me to document to the interwebs what exactly has been accomplished since the previous month. Hopefully the knowledge that other people are judging me will help pull me out of the third book blahs.

So without (much) further ado, here’s where I stand with current projects:

Completed manuscripts of both Rory’s story and Mac’s story – two characters who appeared with Celeste Benning in Sexting the Limits. Completed meaning that I have finished a rough draft and polished them up once.
I’m thinking that Mac’s story, which is a good bit shorter than either of the other two girls may go up on my website and on Goodreads as a free read. It needs some mild editing by me for content and then will ship off to a copy editor friend of mine who will give it the spit and polish treatment.
Rory’s story is a bit more problematic. My brain really wondered while writing it and it’s a little scattered. It will take more way work to whip it into shape. Hopefully I’ll fall back in love with the characters and it won’t be as arduous as I believe.
I have what I believe to be a cute idea for a longer story that needs some more outlining before I dive in. I’m also playing with the idea of setting it in Oregon, which is a gorgeous place. I’ll scope out more possibilities when I go visit my brother there in a week.
I have three to four completely outlined novella to novel length stories that I need to get a move on. Maybe we’ll see if I can work on a couple of projects simultaneously as I write shorter novellas while plugging along on something longer. Could be a disaster. I’ll keep you posted! (Get it? Posted? I crack me up.)

 

Young, Dumb, and In Love

Young, Dumb and In Love

Thanks to the miracle of modern science we have some breaking news: a percentage of men are more attracted to dumb-looking women. Your tax dollars at work (at least in the form of student loan dollars).

Several graduate students at the University of Texas – Austin recently released an article in a scientific journal about their experiment on what they call “sexual exploitability hypothesis” which is based on the differences between male and female reproductive strategies as humans have evolved. It’s the same old song and dance. Men are biologically urged to spread their seed far and wide to create the maximum amount of children while women are inclined to say yes to good providers and men more likely to stick around. The assumption of the experiment is that these ingrained urges are hard to shake.

The purpose of the experiment was to see if a woman who is less alert is more sexually arousing to men – or in the words of the study authors, “sexually exploitable”.

Putting all of this into an experiment proved to be quite the system of levers and pulleys. The authors first invited one group of undergraduate students (male and female) to suggest “specific actions, cues, body postures, attitudes, and personality characteristics” that would indicate a woman is more likely to be receptive to sexual advances. At the end of the day, there were 88 signals that the group believed signaled this very thing. The cues spanned from “lip lick/bite,” “intoxicated”, “sleepy”, “unintelligent”, “punk”, and “touching breast”.

The authors scoured the internet (or at least their friend’s facebook pages) for pictures of women performing or exhibiting each of the 88 cues. They then ran these pictures and descriptions past another control group of undergrads to make sure they matched up. I’m assuming the “unintelligent” women were the ones standing next to a person wearing an “I’m with stupid” t-shirt in their profile pics.

Then a third group was brought into the study. (Thank God it’s a large university.) Now 76 males (not previously included in the groups) were shown the pictures in no particular order. For each picture they were asked to rate it based on the woman’s attractiveness, how easy it would be to “exploit” her for sex, and her appeal as either a short-term or long-term partner. It’s worth noting that only straight students participated.

Results were mixed. More physical cues made no difference on the raters. Things like height or weight were not seen as indicators of lay-ability or particularly tempting as long or short term partners.

Other cues did have more of an effect however. Cues like “low self-esteem”, “recklessness”, “intoxication”, and “fatigue” were rated as easier to seduce. Shocking right? But those who exhibited these cues were also rated as more attractive than women who appeared coherent and sober.

The good news (?) is that these finding seemed to only apply to short-term flings. When asked to rate the same traits for a more long-term relationship or marriage, “dim-witted” didn’t have quite the same appeal.

This whole study leads me to believe that everything you need to know about people can be divined by watching animals. Bear with me. (Bear! Get it? I crack me up.) On the Nat Geo channel they are always showing film of lions hunting gazelle. They cut the weakest looking gazelle off from the herd and use their strength in numbers to EAT the lonely gazelle.

Lonely gazelle = doe-eyed drunk girls teetering on high heels running after their group of girlfriends.

Just so we’re all clear, the scientific term “exploitation” in this instance just means that a woman is willing or can be easily pressured into having sex. This includes women that are the aggressors.

So in sum, if I want a casual fling I should act dumb but for more long lasting relationship possibilities, I can stick to being a bossy know-it-all. Oh, was that not the point of the experiment? This is good news for me because despite frequently being wrong on accident I probably could never purposefully be stupid. I’m perfectly willing to admit when I’m wrong, but since I refuse to throw a game of Candyland with small children on principle, there’s very little chance I’ll lie to get picked up by you, lazy-guy-down-the-bar.

But it’s nice to know I can always fall back on “drunk” to test this hypothesis. You know, for science.

If you want to nitty gritty, here’s the article I’m pulling from because the actual study in publishing in The Journal of Evolution and Human Behavior and is only available if you have a subscription.

What Men Want

Today I ran across an article in the NY Times about the fact that the latest evidence (from 2008) shows that men care a lot less than they used to about women having more education than them.  In 1956, men were asked to rank the most desirable qualities for women.  Education and intelligence came in 11th on a scale of 18 qualities. In 2008, education and intelligence had moved up to 4th place. At the same time qualities like being a good cook or a good housekeeper moved much further down the list in 2008.

Sounds like great news right? Yeah, guys no longer have a problem being with someone smarter! Which is a good thing, since males account for only 43 percent of American college graduates these days. The rest of the article was mostly about how marriages with the female half being more educated than the male were generally as successful as the reverse. Not least because for a woman, one of the most telling factors of a successful marriage is how willing her husband is to pitch in with housekeeping.  Which a man is more likely to do if his wife is making more money than he is. To be honest, the article was a little meandering. Check it out here if you love statistics.

In order, here are the top twelve qualities men wanted in women as of 2008:

Mutual attraction, love
Dependable character
Emotional stability, maturity
Education, intelligence
Pleasing disposition
Sociability
Good health
Good looks
Desire for home, children
Ambition, industriousness
Refinement, neatness
Good financial prospects

First of all, someone please explain "pleasing disposition". Secondly, what I couldn't help but wonder as I painstakingly minimized and maximized their chart to get this list (you're welcome, world) is has what men want really changed that much? Or have the percentage of men that are savvy enough to realize that it's not cool to say you're looking for "a cook in the kitchen and a whore in the bedroom, heh heh" just gone up?

Most of the top twelve qualities men look for have remained the same since 1939 when the study was first administered. Most of the rankings have traded places, but they remain the same top twelve with two exceptions. In 1939, #8 was a good cook and it is now good looks. And no surprise here, but in 1939 #10 was chastity which is now ranked dead last at #18.

So what does this mean? That men want the same things they did in 1939, but now they want you to be better looking and put out. Cooking optional though.

V.D. — That Stands for Valentine’s Day

So on this, the most hackneyed of holidays, I set out (and by “set out” I mean Googled) to find the history behind Valentine’s Day. To my surprise all that history.com could offer up was a big shrug.  Seriously, the first line of the article is, “The history of Valentine’s Day–and the story of its patron saint–is shrouded in mystery.” They go on to speculate that the origin could have been anything from a priest marrying couples in secret when it was against the law to an imprisoned man who fell in love with his jailor’s daughter and wrote her a letter before he was killed. All super romantic stuff, but I think my favorite is the legend that Valentine’s Day was created by the Christian church to God-up the pagan celebration of Lupercalia. During this celebration, believers would sacrifice animals and then walk around slapping women and fields with the blood-soaked pelt of a goat. Later in the day, all of the single women would put their name in a jar and be randomly paired with the city’s bachelors for a year. Apparently, this custom frequently ended in marriage for the pair. So I imagine the practice to have about the same success rate and scientific viability of eHarmony.

Even though I don’t have a lover-like person to celebrate the holiday with, it still remains one of my favorites. First of all, my mother bought me some bitchin’ fuzzy heart covered pajama pants and that’s just a good time no matter what day it is. Secondly, I love a good holiday themed romance. My favorites lean more towards Christmas time, but that may have more to do with my love of the holiday than actual good plotting. But I had to pull out a Valentine’s themed book for kicks today.

I chose The Trouble with Valentine’s Day by Rachel Gibson. This was part of a series she did with heroes that were hockey players. I’ll be honest. I don’t cotton much to them winter sports but other than being a little rough and tumble around the edges (as, let’s face it, most professional athletes probably are), I really enjoyed the heroes.  Plus this book has a fantastic sex scene that takes place in a…wait for it…grocery store.

I’ve been quite happy with my solitary Valentine’s evening with a good book and a glass of wine. And if you’re looking for a great holiday read, I whole-heartedly recommend this one. Whether you’re cool enough to pull off a pair of fuzzy heart pajama pants or not.

V.D. — That Stands for Valentine's Day

So on this, the most hackneyed of holidays, I set out (and by "set out" I mean Googled) to find the history behind Valentine's Day. To my surprise all that history.com could offer up was a big shrug.  Seriously, the first line of the article is, "The history of Valentine's Day–and the story of its patron saint–is shrouded in mystery." They go on to speculate that the origin could have been anything from a priest marrying couples in secret when it was against the law to an imprisoned man who fell in love with his jailor's daughter and wrote her a letter before he was killed. All super romantic stuff, but I think my favorite is the legend that Valentine's Day was created by the Christian church to God-up the pagan celebration of Lupercalia. During this celebration, believers would sacrifice animals and then walk around slapping women and fields with the blood-soaked pelt of a goat. Later in the day, all of the single women would put their name in a jar and be randomly paired with the city's bachelors for a year. Apparently, this custom frequently ended in marriage for the pair. So I imagine the practice to have about the same success rate and scientific viability of eHarmony.

Even though I don't have a lover-like person to celebrate the holiday with, it still remains one of my favorites. First of all, my mother bought me some bitchin' fuzzy heart covered pajama pants and that's just a good time no matter what day it is. Secondly, I love a good holiday themed romance. My favorites lean more towards Christmas time, but that may have more to do with my love of the holiday than actual good plotting. But I had to pull out a Valentine's themed book for kicks today.

I chose The Trouble with Valentine's Day by Rachel Gibson. This was part of a series she did with heroes that were hockey players. I'll be honest. I don't cotton much to them winter sports but other than being a little rough and tumble around the edges (as, let's face it, most professional athletes probably are), I really enjoyed the heroes.  Plus this book has a fantastic sex scene that takes place in a…wait for it…grocery store.

I've been quite happy with my solitary Valentine's evening with a good book and a glass of wine. And if you're looking for a great holiday read, I whole-heartedly recommend this one. Whether you're cool enough to pull off a pair of fuzzy heart pajama pants or not.