Asymmetrical Information

Salmon and eggshell? Sheesh, surely that's gotta be a bigger deal-breaker...

Once, after having gone to lunch as a first date (it really is a better way of keeping things low-key initially), a woman I had recently met invited me to a party she was hosting. Once there, I soon discovered that, in contrast to the lunch conversation we enjoyed, covering a wide variety of topics having nothing to do with politics, her friends were primarily concerned with the political as a medium of discourse.

I really do dread discussing politics in a party or casually social setting, especially with people that I don't know well, because so many folks seek simple labels, and when you fail to adhere to that expectation, or worse, indicate that you disagree with their views, it often makes for a less than pleasant evening. More than one conversation has turned chilly when I've said I wasn't really comfortable with describing either side of the abortion debate in the harshest terms.

In any case, at this party, after I had made some non-committal remarks in response to how I viewed a pressing political issue of the late '90s, somebody sensed that I didn't know the secret handshake, and exclaimed, in astonished tones, as the room fell silent, "You're not a (insert label), are you?!!", to which I decided to reply, "Actually, I was raised by wolves, and only have allegiance to my canine pack."

Strangely enough, I never saw the woman again.....

Abortion?! I never had one. But I hear they're tasty.

Are you implying that you'd like to have my abortion?

My wife has for several days been looking for a bumpersticker that reads "I was raised by wolves". Which, in my view, is a perfectly reasonable response to almost any political question.

Or slightly better.

Did you just imply that you wanna have my abortion?!

"How do I feel about abortion? Well, it certainly would have been the best option for you. Hey, where are you going?"

Rumor has it that some guys are willing to lie about such things. Which makes the litmus test hard to apply. How do you know the guy was honestly in favor of/opposed to abortion or just trying to get insider your pants?

"Abortions for all!"

"Booooooo!"

"Hmm... Abortions for nobody!"

"Booooooo!"

"Hmm... Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!"

"Yaaaaaaay!"

It's not what you answer, it's how you answer.

Hehe. "Rumor has it".

Bad Dave. Bad.

How do you know the guy was honestly in favor of/opposed to abortion or just trying to get insider your pants?

Which begs the question – how would abortion be different from any topic in that regard?

Why would what a man thinks about abortion be of any practical importance to a woman? She doesn't need his permission to have an abortion, and if she does have one, she doesn't even need to tell him that she was ever pregnant.

And it doesn't really do a man that much good to know how a woman feels about abortion, either. Even if she thinks it should be legal, that doesn't mean she would have one herself. And even if she thinks she would now, you never know whether she'll actually go through with it if she does become pregnant.

Jane,

For what it's worth, here's my suggestion. Give up on liberals already. They (we) only seem to cause you aggravation at every level across the spectrum.

I'm sure there are plenty of tall, erudite conservatives out there who would be only too happy to keep you in thrall with the joys of capital punishment, the unmitigated benefits of torture and the debilitating sins of the poor.

And no more Nancy Pelosi/George Bush screeds to trouble your sleep because it's pretty well established that conservatives are totally copacetic on both points.

Cheers,

Obviously not a reader, Rofe, why post?

"How do you know the guy was honestly in favor of/opposed to abortion or just trying to get insider your pants? "

The obvious solution to this dilemma is to wear a dress. Either that, or ask him during sex.

You come to a fork in the road knowing that one way leads to your destination and the other to certain death, but you do not know which is which. There stands at this crossroad two men, brothers actually, who can identify the correct road for you. You also know that one brother always lies, the other always tells the truth. To determine which road to take you may ask one question of one of the brothers; what is your question?

Hummm........kinda OT, but I can see a two- question solution:
"Is this guy your brother?" followed by, "Which road goes to my destination?"
What's the (a) one-question solution?

Dave W makes a good point. I see here, and saw at Dr Helen's, a lot of responses the the effect of "that was the last time we saw each other". Nobody wanted to discuss the other possible (probable?) outcome, at least for a guy: "I gave the answer she wanted, but that was the moment the relationship became about sex, rather than anything long-term."

"what is your question?"

Which way will your brother tell me to go to get to my destination? Then do the opposite of the answer you get.

If a certain deeply felt and controversial stance plays a major role in the way you look at the world, it makes sense to gauge what a prospective partner's views are, but it is probably a good idea to be very subtle about it. I happen to think that reasonable people may and do disagree on difficult issues like abortion, and though I would not have any trouble dating someone who disagrees with me on that issue, I would like to know more or less where they stand at some point. On the other hand, positions on other issues are truly a good measure of whether two people can coexist peacefully. Being a foreigner and a rootless cosmopolitan who does not value American lives more than the lives of generic others, I, for example, could never date a flag-waving, hawkish American patriot.

The key is for the person being asked such a rude question, regardless of ideological leanings, to turn the tables immediately.

"Where do you stand on [pet political cause X]?"

"I [disagree with pet political cause X]."

As her face tightens with disgust and since it would be obvious that the date would never work out, I would chide HER on the spot for supporting pet political cause X, say that I could never date someone who held such an opinion, walk out, and stick her with the check. Make it clear that HER opinion is the immoral one.

Lovely apolitical pet cause, D------.

normally i don't pay attention to a woman's political views, but if her views are so blinkered and pigheaded that they spill over and ruin her entire personality (as in the case of megan mcardle), they begin to become a problem...

I'm pro choice in a completely non-militant way, and I don't have any problem with people who are pro-life. I'm just not going to sleep with them! If we take every precaution and I'm the one in 500 (or whatever it is) who happens to get pregnant, the last thing I need is a boyfriend who's going to give me a guilt trip instead of support. If he can't do that, it's not worth it to me to sleep with him.

If it was an old movie, the woman would ask about abortion, the man would make some infuriating reply, and two reels later they'd be on their way together to blow up the Nazi gunboat. Or the Deathstar.

Maybe it's not asking about abortions that's unnatural, but first dates.

There was a Seinfeld episode about abortion as a political litmus test for dating. Elaine wouldn't date men who were opposed to abortion rights, with predictably comic results.

Would a man who is opposed to abortion be willing to lie about his position on the issue just to keep hope alive that he would get laid at the end of the first date?

My first marriage lasted 27 years, and my second marriage has lasted, so far, for 14 years. (I offer that as proof that I'm a reasonably steady, responsible guy.)

But after reading threads like this one, I can GUARANTEE y'all that if I ever became single again, I wouldn't waste five minutes dating modern American women; I'd be on the next plane to Brazil or the Phillipines, or Mexico or Vietnam, or some other third-world country looking for a traditional girl with traditional values.

"Would a man who is opposed to abortion be willing to lie about his position on the issue just to keep hope alive that he would get laid at the end of the first date?"

Well, that would depend on a few things. But assuming the woman in question met certain "thresholds" (which would only be an issue on a blind date...), yes. As would a man who wasn't preoccupied with the issue, had no position, or agreed with the woman but found the question boorish.

When I met my husband we were at completely different ends of the political spectrum. We would get into heated arguments about all sorts of things (abortion included). We now joke about the time I tried to break up with him over the correct interpretation of the Constitution (strict, of course). To his credit, he was intellectually honest enough to actually independently verify the arguments I was presenting, and within months was a libertarian too. And that, to a great extent was what attracted me to him in the first place, and ultimately won my heart.

No, Aaron - Rofe is obviously a troll, not merely a non-reader.

A better-lettered version of "u liik torcher lolz!", but still the same effect.

(I imagine there are plenty of liberals Jane might get along with smashingly. Say, Oliver Kamm.)

On the other hand, getting a question like this early on in a first date is an opportunity to exit out the side door of the restaurant and do something worthwhile with your evening.

Here is a tangent, I assume many of you can relate. Has reading blogs ruined you for regular political discourse in real life?

Even when you agree with people, the opinions they hold are so poorly founded that all you see are the holes that a reasonably well informed person of a different political persuasion would exploit. And when you disagree with people, you feel like you need to get them about 50 blog posts and five books before they even get up to speed enough to offer meaningful disagreement.

It is a curse. I used to love talking politics, but now its a waste, except on maybe a few select blogs.

"do something worthwhile with your evening"

Which implies that you can't do something meaningful with someone you disagree with. I suppoes it would be "efficient" to make a prospective date answer a questionnaire. But efficient and meaningful relationships are two things who paths rarely cross.

On our first date, my wife raised a political issue. It was one on which our views were, and are, completely opposed. And do you know what? She didn't say "you must believe X if you want to date me." She told me, in essence, that she believed X, and that while she didn't demand that I agree, I should understand how she felt (she had learned, through accidental but unmistakable evidence, that I held a different views).

I thought then, and I think now, that short of agreeing with me, that was the best possible way to handle that sort of a thing. It had none of the priggish self-righteousness of a litmus test, and it told me that I had found someone who was used to dealing with people whose views were different, and that she could live with the difference. It turned out to be one of the best possible signs that she was the sort of person I could live happily with.

May you all be as lucky as I am. Happy Easter!

Reflecting on this topic it is clear why divorce rates are so high. No, it is not because droves of women who were previously abused by their husbands now have freedom to leave, but I'd guess most of the divorces these days comes from simple pigheaded selfishness to the point where you can no longer accept that someone else holds a different viewpoint or just accept that they (or you) are wrong on a certain issue. Not that people are divorcing over roe v. wade, but this whole mindset of finding people who agree with you, or else you're wasting your time speaks volumes to the thousands of couples who eventually divorce because they are unable to put aside their differences and live with each others perceived failings.

Justin wrote:
“Has reading blogs ruined you for regular political discourse in real life?... Even when you agree with people, the opinions they hold are so poorly founded that all you see are the holes that a reasonably well informed person of a different political persuasion would exploit.”

My answer:
Yes and no.

Yes, in the sense that most people (of all political stripes) do little/none of the intellectual leg-work needed to form truly well-reasoned political opinions, and engaging someone like that is a frustrating — and usually futile — enterprise. No, in the sense that I felt this way waaaaaaay before the internet revolution.

Megan's reason makes sense, but I think the reason some women ask the question is quite different. They see his position on abortion as indicative of whether he respects women at all. If he's pro-life, she thinks, it means he doesn't understand a woman's need to control her own body.

Justin,

I find just the opposite: with all the blog reading I do, I'm miles, and sometimes even light years, ahead of those who don't. I have a much better all-around working knowledge of what's going on, what the stock arguments are, and lots and lots of interesting don't-sound-like-talking-points-because-they're-not ways to get the discussion past the otherwise predictable impasse.

Justin,

I find just the opposite: with all the blog reading I do, I'm miles, and sometimes even light years, ahead of those who don't. I have a much better all-around working knowledge of what's going on, what the stock arguments are, and lots and lots of interesting don't-sound-like-talking-points-because-they're-not ways to get the discussion past the otherwise predictable impasse.

Is the comment function broken? I posted my previous comment, then reposted it...

Cause it's fun, and annoys the right people, I tend to play up my rightwing extremism. Rightwing, frat-boy, finance/development professional who loves steak. If girls are OK with that, then we'll get along great, if not, there's just no point. They don't need to agree with me ( obviously I end up with fairly conservative/libertarian girls and make them more hardcore) but I'm not going to try and tiptoe around.

Asking someone else's position on something controversial is uncouth, especially when you're only looking for one answer. Requiring total agreement is stupid and unpleasant, and there are much more polite and successful ways to ensure that someone will be understanding of who you are.

The women in question should mention that they do, or look back fondly on their past, work for planned parenthood or somesuch. So many people have no skills.

normally i don't pay attention to a woman's political views, but if her views are so blinkered and pigheaded that they spill over and ruin her entire personality (as in the case of megan mcardle), they begin to become a problem...

Ah, so you must be the brother who always lies.

I too think that blogs have ruined political discourse for me. I now can only speak of politics with my best friends, the most intelligent ones, because I know that they won't feel like I'm trying to dominate the conversation or make them feel stupid. I feel uncomfortable discussing these things with people who haven't thought over the issues as much. Is that odd?

Nope, Sigivald, you've got it all wrong. I may be a troll (though I thought it was merely pointed sarcasm), but I am also certainly a regular and nearly devoted reader. So, yes, I know about the 'are you dating a liberal' flap from a few weeks back, etc, etc. I also know about and respect Jane's intellect and her writing ability. I've said as much directly to her as far back as summer / fall 2002.

What drives me to distraction, however, is her frequent - constant? - use of liberals as cheap punchlines in her posts. I challenged her on exactly that point a few weeks after I started reading her blog.

Sounds petty, I know, get a life, etc. But what's always puzzled me is that for someone as level-headed, obviously thoughtful and self-proclaimed non-partisan as Jane is, why the gratuitous slaps?

There are no doubt plenty of right-wing guys on the make out there who would be something less than a hoot on a first date.

Cue 'hey'.

Cheers,

In response to Glen - I have encountered women who (oddly) use abortion as a proxy for ability to commit.

It's also a reasonable proxy for what the people involved are looking for in a relationship.

In response to Glen - I have encountered women who (oddly) use abortion as a proxy for ability to commit.

It's also a reasonable proxy for what the people involved are looking for in a relationship.

See also: Hills Like White Elephants by Hemingway.

"To determine which road to take you may ask one question of one of the brothers; what is your question?"

I'd say it's a toss-up between:

"What's the capital of Ohio?"

and

"Do these jeans make me look fat?"

I agree with Dr. Helen. First dates are not the time to discuss controversial topics such as abortion--it makes people uncomfortable and because the relationship is fairly new you don't know if the person is the type who is likely to lie to avoid rocking the boat. As the relationship progresses-if it progresses-then you find out increasingly personal things about the person by asking increasingly intrusive questions.

Any woman who thinks it's ok to ask a man if he is pro- or anti-abortion rights on a first date shouldn't mind being asked if she has or hasn't had an abortion ( or two or three).

On the other hand, deal breakers should be discussed as soon as possible. For instance, if you're a devout Catholic who eschews contraception and intends to remain a virgin until marriage, you should probably tell your atheist, has-no-intention-to-ever-marry date about your background ASAP.

I've always been pretty aggressive in promoting my opinions, political or otherwise, so blogs have merely allowed me to focus on discussion in forums like this, instead of with random friends and acquaintances. I'm sure my less politically aware friends are happy for the change.

Christina: out of curiosity, did you, in a previous online incarnation, go by the name tabitha?

I think it is reasonable, on a first date, to try to ascertain if the other person shares your views. I also think that it should be done with the lost art known as "tact". I am single, and my litmus test is that I only want to meet rational atheists. I try to elicit their views on baby Jesus or crystal healing through indirect, non-confrontational conversation. It is the polite way to deal with people. It is fun, though, when I meet someone into "alternative medicine", to pretend to be a supporter of "alternative auto mechanics", where smudging sage for transmission problems or placing crystals for electrical problems is a valid remedy - and see there hypocrytical shock.

The whole abortion debate is one that there never will be an answer to, and it is intellectual wheel-spinning to engage in it. The opinions range from "don't have sex if you don't want to have a child", to "it is OK to kill it as long as it is on the umbilical cord" (or if it is severely disabled, post-natal euthenasia is an option in some countries). There is little that rational objective thought can contribute to this - since even abstaining from sex, you are preventing a potential human life from existing.

I am pro-choice, but could never in good concience support aborting a child I contributed 1/2 to creating; I got married at 20 and changed my career and life paths because of my girlfriend's unexpected pregnancy. I don't regret it, but I would not suppose to decide for others.

I do think that there is a need to create symmetry in the gender roles: a woman has the right to decide to abort or not, and the man has the right to either demand an abortion or absolve himself of any financial responsibility. Ideally, I think this should be an area of contract law, but human nature makes this an unlikely solution in most cases. The reaction of radical feminists to this notion often indicates their desire for positional advantage, rather than equality.

Lab Rat: mekindlythinks you could--when meeting someone that does not meet your standards--make a mental note not to go out on another date with the person in question, rather than pretending to be into alternative mechanics, just for kicks. In fact, you could actually appreciate and enjoy the company of someone with whom you would not--for whatever reason--consider having a second date. Just saying.

Pedro-

I always try to enjoy the company of those I am with - especially on a first date - but If they come across as having some fundamental delusion about how the universe works - like not understanding the laws of physics or germ theory - is it moral to not help them understand truth? And is a possibly humorous methaphor a more kind way than an in-your-face confrontation? I think so.

I am leaning towards the previous posters that suggest one should crawl out the bathroom window, and leave the sub-literate with the check.

Hmm, in what sense would it not be a good thing to have George Bush's head on a pike outside the White House?

It would probably save the country and a lot of lives, not to mention the Republican Party.

There are times when being "reasonable" and "evenhanded" is the height of folly. One of those times is when the parties you are dealing with see no merit in reason, or evenhandedness.

There are times when being "reasonable" and "evenhanded" is the height of folly. One of those times is when the parties you are dealing with see no merit in reason, or evenhandedness.

------

Like when you're dealing with Iran? Or North Korea? Or --gasp-- Iraq? Or is that only true when it comes to dealing with Bush and Hitler.

What's the (a) one-question solution?

"Which road will your brother tell me leads to my destination?". Then you take the other road.

Back on-topic, Brandon has it right -- since as a man I have absolutely no say in whether a woman can abort our fetus, I don't see what legitimate reason she'd have for asking me.

You might want to avoid this question on future first dates.

After this blog, your beau would pretty much take it for granted that he would get lucky (at least if he got the right answer)!

Comments are Closed.