Asymmetrical Information

"It's time for all of us to admit that this courtship model simply doesn't work," are the words that begin the very next paragraph. Clearly, Elizabeth Austin thinks that if it is an ironclad rule, it's high time to get some armor-piercing artillery. And the rest of the article makes the point very effectively. So, Jane, your blissful ignorance hasn't hurt you a bit.

Jane, given that monica is mentioned early in the article, i was looking for the definition of sex (are we only talking about the loins, here).

They you find out,

Right now, those first couple of dates are incredibly intense; we give ourselves only six or eight hours of conversation before deciding whether we want to commit to a monogamous sexual relationship.

who knew, people not having any fun on a date. quess everyone is worried about the broccoli stuck in their teeth. but then again everyone is having a conversation (a dull one at that i bet).

then we find out ms. austin is smug (she also wears Birkenstocks, drink chablis and has been married for ten plus years at the very minimum).

I suppose I should make a confession here: I haven't done any dating for a long, long time. I'm what Bridget Jones author Helen Fielding would call a "Smug Married."

i'm not surprised. but she has a better life, as compared to her friends

I hear my single friends bewailing their dating lives (they are not dating their looking for fresh meat)as well as Though from what I hear from my single girlfriends, the sex isn't all that hot, anyway. (not surprised everyone was tense .

i have this feeling that third date rule is for those who are worried about their bilogical clock.

on the banks of the housatonic

Oh, come on, people. You folks have got to have better perceptive skills than these comments imply. If you can't tell by the third episode of quality time whether this relationship is going anywhere or not, believe me, it's not. If the chemistry hasn't catalysed SOMETHING by then, the chances are probably zero that it will blossom into a long-term relationship. OK, maybe not zero, but rather an asymptotic function approaching zero, which for most of us is, as a practical matter, an infallible indicator to move on.

Goodness, that article is some shallow stuff. And people wonder why their romances lack substance and meaning.

Regarding chemistry, Big Richie's got it: an observant eye can cut through nervousness and assess an irreparable divide. I've practically run out of fingers to count the number of girls over the years ne'er to see a second or third (or first) night - it just wouldn't have worked, so why draw out heartache? Hey, I expect the same.

who knew??

I stunned my date, now my wife, when she asked what I thought of our relationship. "I'm not interested in a relationship. I don't want one. I would like to fall in love, get married, have tons of sex, probably have some kids as a result of it, and give you flowers. No relationships, no commitments, no polysyllables. Just love, marriage, and sex." Somehow, we kept dating anyway, and got married. It worked, and I recommend it. It's a lot simpler.

I'm the father of two daughters and one son. House dating rules (so far):

*No dating until 16 years old.

*No dating the same person more than twice in a row before graduating from high school.

Am I now to add, "No third date until after you're married."?

I think that 3rd date rule is wishful thinking on the part of men. Is two dates really enough time to get comfortable enough to have The Talk about birth control and safe sex? What ever happened to heavy petting or simply kissing for hours?

This article begins with words that would harrow up thy soul, and freeze thy young blood:

Monica Lewinsky has a new job: doling out her sage dating advice...

And it sort of goes downhill from there. It makes the racy "Dating Game" seem quaint and gentle.

O God, and I just found the paragraph comparing Bridget Jones to Elizabeth Bennett (except the ditz thinks it's "Barrett"). May her parts shrivel and blacken for that blasphemy.

Angie said:

O God, and I just found the paragraph comparing Bridget Jones to Elizabeth Bennett (except the ditz thinks it's "Barrett"). May her parts shrivel and blacken for that blasphemy.

But, Bridget Jones WAS supposed to be Elizabeth Bennett. Wasn't she? I only saw the last hour or so of "Bridget Jones' Diary" (on cable), but I recognized that it was a (inferior) take-off of "Pride and Prejudice," just as "Clueless" was of "Emma." Maybe it was Collin Firth (sp?) that make the connection for me.

I guess you can tell that my wife _loves_ Jane Austen movies :)

Mycin:
Clueless was a fantastic take off on Emma. It was a very clever and entertaining movie. Watch Clueless back to back with Emma and you will see what I mean.

Arnold: excellent! I'll have to remember that.

Rules like this are what make me so glad I'm married.

I always wondered why my potential girlfriends always contracted leprosy after our second date. Now I know.

i always thought the third date rule meant that that was the earliest a woman could have sex with a guy without runing the risk of being thought a "floozy". I know that for some societally programmed reason, the rule only applies to women you have just met. If you have known someone for a wile (through work, school, or whatever) and already know enough to be mutually interested, hopping in the sack from the get-go seems fine. But if a woman with whom I am on a first or second date (and barely know) is doing "Monica Manipulations" of my friend JT, I (afterward of course) cannot help but think that "she does this all the time." Just as some women wish to believe that they are the one's to tame the savage asshole that is man, me would like to believe that theirs is the Mojo that turns a woman into a freak.

Shagging on the 3rd date is way too early. Unless that's all you're looking for. I wouldn't even bring it up (heh-heh).

Now, in my experience you can tell on the first date whether there's that special "something" there. Chemistry I guess you could call it. Why even go on the 2nd or 3rd if there's not?

But, Bridget Jones WAS supposed to be Elizabeth Bennett. Wasn't she?

Urk. I confess I did not see the movie, but I did read of a bit of the book. The only similarities I saw were that Bridget's family were keen to get her married and pregnant, and Elizabeth's mother was keen to get her (and her sisters) married.

That's the same way in which War and Peace is like GI Joe comics, in that they're both about war 'n stuff.

You're right (or so I've heard) about Emma and Clueless, though.

Maybe Bridget Jones is supposed to be Lydia Bennett; now that I might believe.

"What does it say about our society that we now consider Monica Lewinsky qualified to help anyone find her soulmate?"

First of all, it only says something about those who watch Fox reality shows, merely a vile subgroup of what she so cavalierly refers to as "we". I'd draw a Venn diagram if I thought it would help.

Second of all, you wimmins ought to be like Barbara Stanwyck in Baby Face, only without the Hays Office ending. Keep your men on a leash, get something fancy out of the deal. Hint at vast untapped reservoirs of sexuality, then squeeze the faucet tight shut until they buy you stuff. They'll play along, and if they don't there's always another one round the corner. Musn't be sentimental after all; this is war.

Cold water splashing...

I went on many dates, 4,5-7 times... same girl (albeit different girls/women/female-persuasion) and what was important was our having the day/date/evening together... we weren't looking for sex, outright... or implied in the long-term.

I'm now married for 12 years, wonderful woman, but then I'm 57, and from 13 to 30 years ago, I was living what I'm sharing in paragraph 1... namely:

"There's much more to human relationships and human interaction than sex."

And for some, this is a real Eye Opener!

Um, I'd never heard of this rule, and I'd never've acted on it, but I'm with Big Richie: If you can't tell it's going somewhere by Date Three, it's not.

Monica's Real Rules of Dating:

1. Go to work for a man as old as your father.

2. On your third day at work (not the first day or the second day but the third day) offer him a blow-job.

3. Don't forget the cigars.

It's all about the game, and how you play it
It's all about control, and if you can take it
It's all about your debt, and if you can pay it
It's all about pain, and who's gonna make it

It's all about the game, and how you play it
It's all about control, and if you can take it
It's all about your debt, and if you can pay it
It's all about pain, and who's gonna make it

I've had sex on the first date several times, and have ended up in relationships which lasted between 6 months and 4.5 years in every case but one. However, these were all women I knew a little before the first date.

People are complaining that three dates isn't enough to committ to a monogamous sexual relationship. For me, that's easy. I pretty much only date people I have some social contact with anyway, and I don't commit to monogamous sexual relationships.

If the person I'm dating is someone I'll actually see at parties, etc., when we're not on dates, the 3-date rule is pretty useful - if something hasn't happened by the third date, time to cut my losses and give the "let's just be friends" speech.

If either party declines sex on the Third Date, it's a clear sign that the relationship is going nowhere.

Dear me, whatever happened to virtue?

It could just as easily be a sign that the asking party is preparing to misuse the other's emotions for selftish personal gratification.

Communication? Hello?

"I've had sex on the first date several times, and have ended up in relationships which lasted between 6 months and 4.5 years in every case but one."

What's the view of the group, is a relationship that lasts 6 months (or 4 years) to be viewed as a success? I'm just asking out of morbid curiosity. I've been married for more than 20 years and there's no way I would willingly get back into the singles scene. A series of relationships that last a short while (even 4 years seems a short while from my perspective) and then expire holds no attraction for me. Such relationships never had any attraction, so maybe it's just a matter of personal taste.

Jake wrote:

Clueless was a fantastic take off on Emma. It was a very clever and entertaining movie. Watch Clueless back to back with Emma and you will see what I mean.

I guess I didn't phrase that too well. I didn't mean for the "(inferior)" remark to apply to "Clueless", only to "Bridget Jones' Diary". I only meant that "Clueless" was a takeoff of "Emma", not necessarily an inferior one.

While I'm not exactly wild about "Clueless", I find it easier to watch than "Emma", so I guess I'd have to agree with you, as far is that goes.

The actual advice given in that article wasn't bad, which was surprising given that it was the drippily leftist Washington Monthly, written by and for malcontents who define themselves in opposition to the normal. The "Jane Austen's Elizabeth Barrett" line was an unexpected laugh. Perhaps that literary character could be paired with "Robert Browning's Elizabeth Bennett".

If a person wanted advice on getting rich, he wouldn't ask the impoverished. If one wanted advice about learning a foreign language, the people to ask would be those who have achieved fluency. So why on earth do people get dating and relationship advice from people who have not themselves been able to maintain a marriage or family? Fortysomething serial daters are examples of how not to do it. Why not find people who have been married 30 or 40 years and ask them how they did it?

The poster who said that sex on the first date had led to several relationships that lasted from six months to four years reminded me of a line attributed to Tallulah Bankhead. Supposedly she once said, "Darling, I can absolutely assure you that cocaine is not addictive. I've been taking it for the past eighteen years."

I can't believe I'm still writing about Jane Austen movies...:)

Angie wrote:

Urk. I confess I did not see the movie, but I did read of a bit of the book. The only similarities I saw were that Bridget's family were keen to get her married and pregnant, and Elizabeth's mother was keen to get her (and her sisters) married.

As I recall from my partial viewing (supplemented by reference to imdb.com), Bridget decides against a well-to-do suitor (Mark Darcy, played by Colin Firth) because she thinks he's stuck up and boring, and instead goes with his old school friend, who is charming but ultimately turns out to be a cad (Daniel Cleaver, played by Hugh Grant (Edward Ferrars in "Sense and Sensibility", speaking of Ms. Austen)). In the end, she dumps the Cad in favor of Mr. Darcy after the two men have had a fight over her.

It's not the closest of take-offs, as Bridget appears to be an only child (IIRC), she's rather neurotic compared to Elizabeth Bennett, and the cad doesn't end up deflowering and marrying her sister, or anything. But there's enough similarity that I noticed, and I'm not usually that observant about these sorts of things.

Mycin, afterwards I did some googling, and apparently Fielding (er, Helen, not Henry) wrote Bridget Jones during the time that the Colin Firth version of P&P was playing in Britain. Apparently Fielding developed a bit of a crush on Firth, and wrote Mark Darcy with him (and Mr. Darcy) in mind.

But my primary point is that the two characters are nothing alike, however superficially similar their situations might be. I found (what little I read of) Bridget Jones repulsive.

Yes, whatever happened to virtue? I figure that if she doesn't throw down $100K into video poker by the third date, it's not going anywhere when I'm in town.

-Bill Bennet

As a guy, I've long used the "Three Date Rule." A woman knows within the first 10 minutes if she's going to sleep with you. If you don't have sex by the third date, the chances of having sex are extremely low and it's time to move on (if that's what you want). I have enough "friends."

I hate to be vulgar, but all you know on the third date is whether or not you want to fuck the other person, not whether this is going to be a long term relationship (unless four months qualifies as a long term relationship).

It takes months to really get to know a person and get a handle of what they are like. Everyone is on their best behavior, dressing their best, and supressing signs of mental instability for the first month at least.

Amen, a healthy relationship cannot be established in three dates (although if you have known the person previously as a friend, that's a huge plus). And IMO that's precisely why this 'rule' is so mind-bogglingly shallow.

Kind of goes back to that comment that when sex is good, it's ten percent of the relationship and when the sex is bad, it's 90%.

The rule was established to "protect" the virtue of women. Whether or not it made sense or was a cheap dodge is unimportant - it is, for many women, still the socially acceptable time to "admit" sleeping with or talk about sleeping with a guy she just started dating.

Most dating rules are simply cover for behaviors we were going to engage in anyway.

Discussing rules is a very easy way to get to know a person. It also represents a challenge.

When I was in college, "nice" girls would put limits of how many months they would date me before sleeping with me.

I have also even just recently been denied a third date because she didn't want to sleep with me (my views on the matter were apparently not taken into consideration).

I think Elizabeth Austin has a very interesting take on the matter, because I arrived at a similar conclusion before reading her arrticle.

Sex is the default position in modern dating relationships, no matter when it starts. That changed the courtship scene and all the rules. People who complain about their dating lives should accept this and move on, or change their own behaviors.

Megan,

While I was unaware of (and have certainly violated) the "men shall never be the first to say 'I love you'" rule, I thought the Third Date Rule was well known.* There are certainly a lot of pop culture references to this. Sex and the City, of course. I'm pretty sure Seinfeld had a show on it. Google also has many hits (see "third date" rule or "three dates" rule).

*I haven't lived this one, either, but then I'm 37 and single.)

Off the subject: Bridget Jones' Diary, the book, is brilliant and very funny. Take her unintelligible post-drinking midnight entries: "jxcchh foth repethny." The author invented a new style.

It's an example of a piece of entertainment that has been so influential it has lost some of its originality. The movie is much less successful.

Hey, uh, "Bill"? Ya misspelled your name, Champ.

While everyone seems to get all excited over the A&E "Pride and Prejudice" (something to do with a pond scene, I imagine), a far superior version, IMHO, is the 1985 BBC one: Mr. Wickham is slyer, Mr. Collins is a blundering buffoon (as opposed to a greasey weasel), and the Bennets are wildly funny. It's just a better script and cast.
This '3rd date' silliness is just another excuse for a cad to get out of a relationship.

This '3rd date' silliness is just another excuse for a cad to get out of a relationship.

Three dates does not a relationship make, even if there is sex involved.

What's the view of the group, is a relationship that lasts 6 months (or 4 years) to be viewed as a success? I'm just asking out of morbid curiosity. I've been married for more than 20 years and there's no way I would willingly get back into the singles scene. A series of relationships that last a short while (even 4 years seems a short while from my perspective) and then expire holds no attraction for me. Such relationships never had any attraction, so maybe it's just a matter of personal taste.

Nobody's answered this question yet, which I find interesting.

However, even for people who would prefer very-long-term relationships, my data is useful, since I doubt very much that the circumstances of a relationship starting (whether sex occured on the first date, the third, or at some other point) would make much difference after the relationship has been going for about year.

Any relationship that ends can not be viewed as a success; it may have had successful points (wonderful children, etc.) but the relationship, ending and leaving one naught but an unpleasant residue, as a whole failed.

I've been married nearly 15 years, and the thought of having to go through the dating 'scene' at my age terrifies me. It was fun when i was 20; the bloom's off that rose now (and admittedly off of me as well...).

Any relationship that ends can not be viewed as a success; it may have had successful points (wonderful children, etc.) but the relationship, ending and leaving one naught but an unpleasant residue, as a whole failed.

I've been married nearly 15 years, and the thought of having to go through the dating 'scene' at my age terrifies me. It was fun when i was 20; the bloom's off that rose now (and admittedly off of me as well...).

Any relationship that ends can not be viewed as a success; it may have had successful points (wonderful children, etc.) but the relationship, ending and leaving one naught but an unpleasant residue, as a whole failed.

I've been married nearly 15 years, and the thought of having to go through the dating 'scene' at my age terrifies me. It was fun when i was 20; the bloom's off that rose now (and admittedly off of me as well...).

damn! how'd that happen? sorry...

Any relationship that ends can not be viewed as a success; it may have had successful points (wonderful children, etc.) but the relationship, ending and leaving one naught but an unpleasant residue, as a whole failed.

Does this include relationships which have ended due to the death of one party? Most of the relationships I've had which have ended have left "unpleasant residue", but they've all left pleasant residues as well: I'm still friends with all but one ex.

One relationship of mine I would be hard-pressed to call a "failure" in any way, other than the bare fact that we're not still having sex. Both of us were looking for something medium-term at the time, not a life partner, and our other preferences for a relationship matched pretty well. We broke up amicably, as the relationship had reached a point where that was the best for both of us. We both gained from the relationship, and lost little from its breakup.

Mr. Bingley and David Walser may not approve, but not everyone is wired to want what they have. I certainly am not. It's nice that they're happy in their marriages, but the rest of us who either aren't in such relationships, or don't really want a relationship like those, have to deal with the dating world of today.

I've heard Pine-Sol works great for cleaning up emotional residue.

Wait. I'm thinking of Jack Daniels. Nevermind.

As far as the success rate of relationships, it depends on what you want out of them. When I was 16 I wasn't looking to get married to my girlfriend, I was looking to have fun. It was a successful relationship. I think the success/failure level of a relationship has more to do with your feelings right after the relationship ends, as well as a few months down the line. If you're still wearing your bathrobe 23 hours a day, eating nothing but Ben and Jerry's Phish Food, and watching the Oxygen Network... that relationship was probably a failure (especially if you're a guy and doing these things. Wait, that makes you Larry Wachowski. Again, never mind).

I'm here all my fellow guy.

Comments are Closed.