If the last decade of dating has taught me anything, it is this: people suck at dealing with breakups. I am referring of course, partially to their own breakups, but more importantly, to other people's dramatic splits.

We've all been there. You think things are going swimmingly, when out of the blue, your significant other wants out. It may come as a shock or it may have been foreshadowed by a long, slow buildup of dread. All you know is that you feel like the floor just dropped out from beneath you and your organs have suddenly turned into soup. At a certain point, everyone has had to go through this particular type of scorched earth devastation, where you quite seriously feel like you'll never get over it, ever, ever. But we all do. And there has been a lot of ink spilled on how to get over a break up. But even with all that out there, talking about breakups is tough, and often results in some truly horrible advice from the most well-meaning people.

It doesn't help that we've developed a kind of breakup formula through constantly replaying the same tropes in romantic comedies and chick flicks. In this narrative, the brokenhearted girl spends time eating Haagen-Dazs while listening to mournful love songs (or, alternatively, "I Will Survive"). But soon, usually with the help of a sassy sidekick, she snaps out of it, gets a makeover, some new outfits, and an upbeat theme song. This is what I like to call the Bridget Jones Method. And while the BJM may be great for some - especially those who inhabit the wonderful world of television - in the real world, ice cream and Gloria Gaynor just don't cut it.

So, while I can't give you five easy steps for getting over a heartbreak (I'm still working on that myself) I can tell you what not to say to someone who is going through a rough patch. These are all things I heard in the days following my breakup and the subsequent move-out (to the friends who told me this stuff: I'm sorry, I know you meant well, but really? Sleeping with his brother? Come on).

"Now is the time to go through a complete life change."
Sometimes breakups can act as a catalyst for complete and total change. However, a couple of weeks ago when a friend of mine first told me this, I wanted to reach through the phone and strangle him. Too often it seems like something is expected of you when you go through a rough patch. And you know what sucks? Acting like a big giant bleeding wound is actually some sort of boon, a golden opportunity for renewal. It might end up being just that, but let's not pretend that you should be thinking about a happy future while your still smarting from the event itself.

"You should do something empowering – like shave your head."
I suppose I should come out right now and admit that I am anti-makeover. I don't understand exactly why hair-or lack thereof-has become such a symbol of female empowerment. But it has. Unfortunately, "shaving your head" is seen two different ways: Crazy woman (example: Britney Spears) or survivor woman (example: Bianca from ANTM Cycle 13). Both of these standards are problematic, but my biggest issue with the shaved-head (or dyed-hair, or even hair-cut) route is that it assumes changing something as superficial as your looks will help you get over something as real as a broken heart.

"Whatever you do, don't lose your dignity."
Okay, I know this seems like decent advice, but it's the last thing you want to hear when you've just spent the night sleeping on the bathroom floor cradling an empty bottle of Stoli blueberry like it's your long lost child only to wake up and realize that your eyes are literally crusted over from crying and your hair has started to look an awful lot like this because even though you've been spending an inordinate amount of time in the bathroom, you haven't made it into the shower quite yet (not that I'd know what that's like, mind you). Dignity is one of the first things to go in a breakup. One of the most helpful things I heard in the week immediately after my own split was this: "Don't feel bad, everyone begs."

"Go out and have revenge sex."
Are you kidding? This tactic may be familiar - and often featured in movies and novels - but I doubt that any good has ever come from following this particular piece of advice. There are those of us who get extremely angry and vindictive following a harsh breakup, but acting on these emotions is never a good idea. There are plenty of great reasons to have sex, but revenge ranks pretty low on my list. To make things even more interesting, my friend suggested that I seduce one of his closest friends-or better yet, his brother. Again: Just say no.

"Take time off, give yourself space."
This almost seems like the flipside of the revenge-sex coin, but there is actually a happy medium to be found between fucking-for-revenge and sequestering yourself away from the dating scene. However, I am not advocating you suddenly jump into another relationship, or that you go out and cheetah (or puma or cougar or whatever large feline is popular right now) some man (or woman) into bed. But don't discount the effectiveness of a well-executed rebound either. And "taking time off" can sometimes be code for "hiding under the covers," something that is particularly easy to do when you work from home and don't really ever need to leave your bed. While I don't want to start handing out my own misconceived advice, I have noticed that spending significant amounts of time with other, non-ex-boyfriend people can be very healing. Plus, it's a good way to keep yourself from dwelling to the point of obsession (and it helps keep the post-breakup drinking in check, too).

Although I have found most of the above advice particularly unhelpful, I realize that, as with everything, your mileage may vary. And while talking about breakups can be uncomfortable and awkward, every person I spoke to had some sort of advice, some bit of wisdom they learned from their own painful experience. Some seemed to recall a Kübler-Ross type of period, a series of stages that they needed to pass through in order to grieve. Others focused on distraction, keeping the mind busy until the initial pain had subsided. Removed from the immediate messiness of the personal story, the get-over-it advice was an easy way to relate and commiserate. But these tactics - along with the chick-flick, rom-com method - simply don't work for me. Some of these well-intentioned suggestions served simply to infuriate me, but looking back, it's much easier to see my reaction as what it was: displaced anger. As for what does work, I'll leave that up to others to decide.

Now, I know a mini-cottage industry has sprung up for the sole purpose of analyzing the Obama's marriage. And Kate Harding touched on much of it when she analyzed the NY Times Magazine cover story about the First Marriage and the dynamics of power inherent in a relationship when one person is the President. She noted:

Despite my focus on the First Lady's sacrifices and the inequality of the marriage here (I am a humorless feminist, after all), Kantor's portrait of the Obama's marriage is really quite sweet, warts and all. They joke. They flirt. They go on dates and ignore the conservatives who flip out about our tax dollars going toward dinner and a show. That's just not the whole picture, and Michelle herself believes revealing the warts has a higher purpose.

Yet, for some reason, I couldn't shake the thought of two pieces on The Root about what reasonable expectations are for a mate. Jenée Desmond-Harris, in a piece called "What Single Women Can Learn from Michelle,"advised women to learn toembrace your goofy, badly -dressed, non dancing nerd and David Swerdlick, writing a response called "What Single Women Can't Learn From Michelle," asked all the single ladies to stop looking for the next President, stop gold-digging, realize hidden potential, and, uh, date outside the race.

I had issues with these types of articles before, but it wasn't until watching Barack Obama give Michelle the eye, laugh and joke, and actually listen to her speak instead of cutting her off like so many other powerful male public figures that I realized what people who say they want a Barack Obama actually want.

They want a partner that treats them with love, honors them by respecting their opinions, and listens like a friend.

Somehow, I don't think that's too much for any of us to ask for.

What Single Women Can Learn From Michelle [The Root]
What Single Women Can't Learn From Michelle [The Root]

Earlier: NYT Magazine: How Can A Marriage Be Equal When One Of You Is President?

In Edward and Bella's relationship, he's controlling, he threatens to commit suicide, he throws her through a glass table, he's jealous of her outside relationships and sometimes loses his temper and damages property when angry. Romantic! But what about stories like Romeo & Juliet? Or Beauty And The Beast? Suicide, violence and death are often at the core of great love stories.

While it makes for glorious, romantic subject matter, all-consuming, obsessive love is, in itself, "unhealthy." Telling someone that you can't live without her sounds romantic, but any therapist would probably diagnose that kind of talk as dysfunctional and codependent. Yet love stories are full of characters — Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights; Satine in Moulin Rouge; the couple in Pretty Woman — who are often liars, cads or ne'er do wells with psychological issues (fear of commitment, etc).

The thing about teenage love, especially, is that it feels like life or death even when vampires are not involved. The characters in flicks like Sixteen Candles, 10 Things I Hate About You and Say Anything take love so seriously that they could also be deemed "unhealthy," with the right diagnosis. In New Moon, Bella is thrown into truly dangerous situations — where her life is actually in peril — and it only functions to make the movie more romantic. He saves her, he represses the urge to bite her, he'd go to Italy and stand in the sun and kill himself if she ever died. Falling for someone — and being vulnerable — is already dangerous, in a way; love stories often just ramp up the drama with peril. While it's not cool that Edward is controlling of Bella, it seems like we, as a culture, love questionable romantic heroes and rebels without causes. Would we even know it was love if there was no danger? Edward and Bella may be in an emotionally abusive relationship, but she's not the first — and we, as an audience, seem to like it that way.

What Do You See In Him Again? [Captain's Log]
Official: Twilight's Bella & Edward Are In An Abusive Relationship [ONTD]
Official: Twilight's Bella & Edward Are In An Abusive Relationship [io9]

Earlier: I Have An Abusive Boyfriend, And He's Coming Home At 8

The "turkey drop," according to NPR, is a breakup that occurs over the Thanksgiving holiday, typically between college freshmen who return home for the first time and finally pull the plug on a high school relationship, though as Dan Savage notes, adults can fall victim to the "turkey drop" as well, due to a desire by one partner to split before the pressures of the Christmas-New Year's-Valentine's Day season kick in. "Thanksgiving is really when you have to pull the trigger if you're not willing to tough it out through February," Savage says.

Savage has a point: it's pretty rough to break up with someone at Christmas, and even harder to ditch a relationship right around Valentine's Day. But at the same time, it's even crueler to stay in a relationship you'd rather not be in just to protect someone's feelings throughout the holiday season, isn't it? I'd imagine that racking up all of those Christmas and New Year's memories is just adding fuel to the post-breakup fire. (Though I have known couples who have stayed together through the holidays, not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of their children and/or family members.)

Still, some "turkey drops" are unavoidable: I actually went through it during my freshman year of college, breaking up with an on-again/off-again boyfriend whom I suddenly had nothing in common with after being away for three months. He was relieved, actually, as he felt the same way. It's quite strange when people you've known for years become strangers; I'd go so far as to guess that many people go through "turkey drops" of sorts with friends during this period as well, due to realizing you're not the same person you were mere months earlier, and neither are they.

So what say you, commenters? Have you been through a "turkey drop?" And do you think it's ultimately cruel or kind to initiate a breakup during the holidays?

Want To Break Up? 'Tis The Season, So Better Hurry [NPR]

[Image via Natalie Dee.]

Well, yes, on some levels. Edward Cullen is both predatory and alluring; much is made of his beauty and his uniqueness, and the risks of dating a vampire who has to fight his own urges carries a sense of danger and excitement that might appeal to some readers. He is your standard tortured bad boy with a (questionable) heart of gold and, well, skin that happens to sparkle in the sun.

I've often taken shots at Edward Cullen, as I find the character, and the relationship he shares with Bella Swan, to be quite creepy; Cullen, to me, reads as extremely controlling and stalker-esque, and I find it hard to believe in their romance when there appears to be so much fear and intimidation involved. However, I often wonder how I would have viewed this book when I was younger, say 13 or so, before I'd ever been in a relationship of my own. As much as I hate to admit it, I think I might have loved Edward Cullen, as well, just as I loved Billy Corgan or Trent Reznor, for being dark but pretty and for seeming slightly dangerous but like they understood what I was thinking as the rest of the world didn't.

For all of his creepiness, Edward Cullen is really just the latest scream-worthy dude that's driving the kids crazy. My mother flipped out over George Harrison, much to my grandparents' dismay. My older sister had a picture of INXS on the wall and kissed it whenever she could. My parents used to shake their heads as I smeared my eyes in black kohl and walked around moping to Siamese Dream. Every one has their unrequited teenage crush; it just seems like teenagers are all zeroing in on the same kid at the same time.

Edward Cullen may come in a different, darker package, but he still represents your typical teenage Tiger Beat dream boat: he wants only you, girl, he'll always be true, girl, he'll totally wait till you're married, girl, there's nobody else in the world for him, girl, he may be bad, but he'll be good to you, girl, etc. He's the guy you can dream about making out with, because you know you'll never make out with him. He represents the kind of love that never comes with rejection, because you know he's not real and you could never have him anyway. He's a safe means of falling in love for those who desperately want to know what it feels like.

The troublesome aspect of the Edward Cullen adoration, of course, is that girls will grow up believing that a boy who sneaks in to your room to watch you sleep is a real catch, as opposed to a total psychopath, and that the disturbing aspects of the Cullen/Swan relationship will stick with teenage girls as a marker of what "real love" is supposed to be. However, I think at times we don't give teenage girls enough credit for growing up and out of these phases; one hopes that if the world presents them with the right education regarding healthy relationships, they'll eventually see that Edward and Bella aren't exactly the ideal, and perhaps their teenage crushes will turn into adult eye rolls.

Who you are and what you believe about love when you're 13 is rarely who you are and what you believe about love when you get older; there are difficult lessons to learn and crushes that will eventually fade away. If there's one answer to why teenage girls love Edward Cullen so much, I'd argue that it's because teenage girls love love so much, and all that comes with it, and Cullen just happens to be the hottest representative of romance in the 7th grade right now. He's an extremely flawed representative, there's no doubt about that, and I hope someone else comes along to knock him off soon, if only because I think teenage girls deserve a better imaginary boyfriend to share initial hearts with in their notebooks.

So what say you, commenters? Would you be into Edward Cullen if you were 13? And did you learn anything from your imaginary teenage crushes?

Why Have Teenage Girls Been Bitten By The Edward Cullen Bug To Devour The Twilight Novels [Guardian]

Watson begins by acknowledging that the words "good wife" are saddled with centuries of baggage: "In a postfeminist world, the word 'wife' on its own sounds quaint enough," she writes, "and 'good wife' conjures up images of blissed-out 1950s housewives admiring their hostess trollies. Good wives are what women had to be before we fought for the right to be good at something else." Still, she argues, there's a difference between being a subservient wife and being a "good wife," and she offers a four part charter to help women separate the idea of being a "good wife" from being a Stepford one, pushing women to make their husbands a priority, to find time for sex, to "beware resentment" and to "be kind and supportive."

Watson's argument, backed by authors Lionel Shriver and Ayelet Waldman, is that women often treat their husbands poorly, putting them last in line when it comes to attention and affection: "Even women who would never call themselves feminists have bought into the idea that men are bottom of the list after their personal fulfilment, fitness routine and, of course, the kids," she writes. Watson's charter is filled with tips and tricks from the likes of Waldman, who claims that couples should create "who does what?" questionnaires to get a sense of how the domestic chores are split, or from Shriver, who says she has to remember to "to remember to treat my husband as well as I treat other people."

The "Good Wife Charter" itself seems to be steeped in marital stereotypes: women withhold sex from their husbands, women put their kids above their spouses, etc. It's meant to be a piece that celebrates healthier partnerships, I suppose, but something feels a bit off about it. She's trying to prove to women that being a good wife is more about being an engaged, caring partner than adhering to the 1950s relationship playbook, but it reads as though marital roles are still centered around a lazy, chore-inept husband and a frazzled, overworked wife.

In fairness, a "How To Be A Good Husband" piece, written by a man, is tacked on to the end of Watson's article, but that's steeped in stereotypes as well: "Talking is important. Talking and listening. I know it can be excruciating, but wives need conversation. They cannot exist on grunts alone. You must save that for the pub. If you don't, you will be nagged. And nagging, as we all know, is the marital equivalent of waterboarding." Yikes.

Overall, Watson's piece offers advice that could really apply to either partner in a relationship: be kind, be involved, be willing to help out. I'm not sure it's entirely helpful to continue to strive to be a "good wife," as much as it would be helpful for both partners to try to bring as much as they can to the relationship. "We have become socialised and media-ised to think it's all about us," Watson writes, "Ask yourself, why did I marry this guy in the first place? But the other questions to ask are, why is he married to me? What's he getting out of it?" Perhaps a better question would be "Why did we marry each other? How can we help each other out?" A "good wife" or a "good husband" is really no match for a "good partnership."

The Good Wife Charter, And How To Be A Good Husband [TimesOnline]

A 38-year-old woman wrote to Godson, concerned that her re-entry into the dating world, after leaving a marriage of 13 years, was being derailed a bit by her pubic hair; specifically, the fact that she has any. The 27-year-old she's now dating was "shocked" to see that she had hair on her genitals, and as the woman notes "I do look after myself (hence the gym) but I don't think that a permanent tan and Brazilian wax should be deal-breakers in a relationship. Or am I just hopelessly outdated?"

Godson's answer, though it comes with a great deal of apologetic buildup, is basically yes. She explains to the woman that the pornification of the world is greatly responsible for younger men's tendency to expect a hairless woman. "There is something hugely irritating about being forced to conform to an aesthetic ideal instigated and perpetuated by the porn industry," Godson writes, "but, like keeping one's armpits and legs smooth, it is now expected. If your boyfriend has been conditioned to expect a tidy Brazilian, he may genuinely find anything else very off-putting."

Oh. Okay then. Because men have been "conditioned" to expect Brazilians, this woman needs to have one right away. We wouldn't want this woman to have any say over her own pubic hair, would we? I mean, she clearly states that she doesn't think Brazilians are necessary for a relationship, but apparently she's wrong in Suzi Godson's eyes, as only a woman who conforms to her boyfriend's pube desires really deserves relationship status. "Though the feminist ethos of your "take me as I am" argument is perfectly valid," Godson argues, "your boyfriend's reaction is instinctive - and in the face of something that is honestly perceived as a turn-off by one partner, rational arguments simply do not work."

Look, if the guy is so turned off by this woman's pubic hair that it really is a sexual dealbreaker for this couple, that's a conversation this couple has to have. But instructing a woman to wax simply for a man's happiness, regardless of her own personal preferences, is ridiculous. Just because men are "accustomed" to a certain thing, it doesn't mean that women have to do it to make them happy. And if a man really can't handle it, maybe it's not the pubic hair that has to go.

Sex Advice: Do I Need To Wax? [TimesOnline]

In the car on the way to film her segment for the show, Hailey opened up about how Jon is emotionally abusive.


It sounds like they have a codependent, miserable relationship.


Unfortunately, Hailey only believes that physical abuse is grounds for a breakup.

I know of several couples who, after amicable breakups, met for lunch and agreed that when they got back to the office, they both would simultaneously change their relationship status from "In a Relationship" to "Single" in one, smooth, sane move, and devote the rest of the afternoon to explaining to curious friends that they were just ready to move on. But in a Salon piece today on the way Facebook is affecting the lives of those going through divorces — and their lawyers — makes that kind of levelheadedness seem rare, at least among an older, less savvy generation.

It seems that every social networking feature that helps keep us connected can also be an irresistible temptation for those who feel wronged by their former spouses. The piece centers on Lauren (fake name), a mother of two who took to Facebook to air her dirty laundry and diss her ex:

"During the month that followed, as the marriage continued to unravel and her grief intensified, Lauren began chronicling her divorce via status updates. "Lauren would cry, but then he wins," she wrote. "There isn't enough Kleenex in the world." "My house is a mess. My life is a mess." "Lauren is facing the aftermath.""

And forget about trying to sneak in status updates aimed directly at your ex's hopefully-jealous heart (and everyone knows when someone's doing that anyway!):

"When she began to write about her new relationship, her husband finally lost it. "I wrote that I was ‘Going to pizza night and beyond,'" Lauren said, "and he was offended by it. I thought it was vague enough.""

Then Lauren expanded her multi-platform revenge empire to the photo-tagging feature:

"Lauren, for example, "tagged" her ex-husband in a photo of their two boys and a coral snake — she gave the snake her husband's name."

Okay, that one is just plain funny. But in their attempts to express their frustration in an increasingly isolated world, some divorcees are accidentally getting creepy:

"Chad Post was expunged by his wife after he posted about chopping down trees in preparation to sell their house. "I wrote that I was probably not in the best mental state to be using a chain saw," he told me. "My wife didn't say anything, but then she defriended me. She just wasn't there anymore. It was super-surreal in a 21st century-meets-third grade sort of way.""

And as if looking nutty to your friends (and high school rivals, and former Sunday School teacher, etc) and sacrificing a bit of your self-respect forever, revealing too much about your post-breakup life on Facebook can have real legal consequences as well, like the possibility of losing custody if your pictures show you drinking or smoking (!), or this kind of thing (which sounds quite far-fetched):

"If, for instance, photos surface online of you and your new paramour toasting each other at a pricey restaurant, you could be found to have committed "marital waste" (spending marital funds on another person)."

Apparently all of this is so common that it's now a just a regular formality in the family law industry:

"Many lawyers, in fact, advise clients not to get on Facebook, MySpace or Twitter at all during a divorce, and some firms require that clients suspend their accounts."

Good plan! The lesson here is not a new one: always remember that nothing you put online can ever be taken back, and that nobody, but nobody, has ever won a breakup or divorce by being less than graceful about it, even before social networking. The article advises regular people to act like celebrities (or, I'd add: pre-Twitter celebrities) and keep your insecure, spiteful, and vulnerable quips close to the vest, no matter how cathartic you think it'll feel to broadcast them. I'd add something to that as well: why not just not answer the relationship part of your Facebook profile? After all, unless you keep your Facebook page as a dating tool, it's really nobody's business, and you can avoid some serious heartache later. Think of it as a social networking pre-nup: reveal nothing, and later have nothing to take back.

The Facebook Divorce [Salon]

According to David Allison, the head of Resolution, a UK group comprised of 5,700 lawyers, "There's been a tenfold increase in 'pre-nups'. I'm doing considerably more now than I have ever done before and that experience is mirrored around the rest of the country. People are doing it because they want to be able to sort this stuff out now rather than later on."

Lawyers argue that high profile celebrity divorces, such as the divorce of Paul McCartney and Heather Mills, which cost McCartney roughly 30 million pounds, have contributed to the rise in prenups as they have allowed couples to view the financial and emotional toll of a messy divorce on a large scale. Though most people don't have McCartney's money, the lack of a prenup in his divorce still serves as a reminder that when things can get very ugly if a couple splits without a plan of sorts in place.

Though I personally have no plans to sign a prenup (mostly due to the fact that I don't think anyone is going to fight me for possession of my very chic 8th grade wardrobe or collection of Ramona Quimby books), I can see the benefits behind one, as cold and unromantic as it may be. Marriage is a contractual agreement on many levels, and with half of all marriages ending in divorce, protection set up to avoid a nasty, drawn out divorce battle might be worthwhile. The romantic in me hates them and finds them dreadful and tacky, but the realist in me can understand why many people feel the need to sign them.

So what say you, commenters? Are prenups necessary in a time when half of all marriages fail? Can you still be romantic while being practical? Or are prenups total romance killers?

More Couples Signing Pre-Nuptials [BBC]
Lamar Wants Prenup—But There's A Problem [TMZ]
<a href="

It strikes me as fairly weird that we're conditioned to pick apart the relationships of both strangers and friends based on their public displays of affection—or lack thereof. I don't think there's any way Carey and Cannon could win in this situation; when Cannon came on stage, he gave Mariah a peck on the cheek- a fairly normal hello, I think, from a husband to a wife.

But Oprah wasn't satisfied: "'Oh you did that "We've been married a long time kiss'," she said, "You didn't give the real kiss, come on." This, of course, led to an awkward exchange between Mr. and Mrs. Carey-Cannon, with Mariah bending away from her husband as he tried to lay a smooch on her. Now, of course, people will speculate that the awkwardness is a sign that the marriage is in trouble, but really, the awkwardness is there because Oprah forced the two of them to give a public display of affection that Mariah wasn't comfortable with.

If Cannon had come out and started making out with Carey, people would be saying that they were "trying too hard" or attempting to "prove something." So he gave her a dumb peck on the cheek. Big deal, Oprah! It doesn't mean they aren't in love—it just means they choose to keep their makeout sessions private. Why isn't that okay?

I suppose all we know about the romantic lives of others is what they choose to show us, and as a culture that is inherently nosy, we often try to pick up on things that may or may not be there, based solely upon how people choose to act in public. So what say you, commenters? Do you judge people on their PDAs? And do you limit or exaggerate your own public displays of affection for fear of being judged by others...or Oprah?

Don't Drop Me! Mariah Carey Shares Awkward Kiss With Husband Nick Cannon [Daily Mail]

[Washington, D.C., September 15. Image via Getty]

Jen and Dawn Barbouroske (L) pose with their daughters McKinley and Bre following a news conference with married same-sex couples, on legislation to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) outside the Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on September 15, 2009. AFP PHOTO/Jewel SAMAD (Photo credit should read JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images)

Kohn says "conditional parenting," in which parents "turn up the affection when they're good, withhold affection when they're not" is in vogue these days, endorsed by Dr. Phil and Jo Frost of "Supernanny." The idea of "withholding affection" sounds harsh, but Kohn's definition of the practice is actually pretty broad. He writes,

Conditional parenting isn't limited to old-school authoritarians. Some people who wouldn't dream of spanking choose instead to discipline their young children by forcibly isolating them, a tactic we prefer to call "time out." Conversely, "positive reinforcement" teaches children that they are loved, and lovable, only when they do whatever we decide is a "good job."

Most of us probably had a few time-outs in our day, and many got rewards when we scored well on tests. So does that mean we're messed up for life? Well, maybe. Kohn cites a study that asked college students "whether the love they had received from their parents had seemed to depend on whether they had succeeded in school, practiced hard for sports, been considerate toward others or suppressed emotions like anger and fear." The students who "received conditional approval" were actually more likely to live up to parental expectations — but often at the price of disliking their parents, and living their lives according to a "strong internal pressure" than to "a real sense of choice."

But do a few time-outs and a few gold stars turn kids into resentful automata who trudge along under constant "internal pressure" created by their parents? Unfortunately, it's kind of hard to tell. Kohn uses terms like love, acceptance, affection, and approval almost interchangeably, but of course they're very different. As one commenter on the Times Well blog said,

The only real currency I have as a parent is my approval. She wants to make me happy and proud, so she behaves. When she misbehaves, she knows we're disappointed.

But that's not the same as loving her conditionally. I love her no matter what, even if I disapprove of behavior.

It seems likely that making parental love contingent on success in school — or even on being "considerate toward others" — might be damaging to kids. But there's a big difference between withholding love and expressing disapproval, and it's a little hard to imagine raising a child without sometimes doing the latter. Kohn advocates "autonomy support" — "explaining reasons for requests, maximizing opportunities for the child to participate in making decisions, being encouraging without manipulating, and actively imagining how things look from the child's point of view." Perhaps "making a clear distinction between loving someone and approving of all her behavior" should be added to this list. While helping kids develop their own moral compasses is an admirable goal, children will need to learn eventually that their behavior affects the way others see them — but not whether they are deserving of love.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about Kohn's piece, though, is that it adds to a growing body of criticism against parental praise. According to Kohn, praise doesn't create soft, self-satisfied narcissists as so many armchair sociologists allege. Instead, if given in a conditional way, it can destroy kids' ability to make their own decisions. And recent studies have shown that children praised for their intelligence care more about doing well than about actually learning. Parents are just as unlikely to quit praising their kids as they are to stop occasionally "disapproving" of them. But in both cases, they should make it clear that no matter how proud or angry they may be in the moment, their love does not depend on being good or doing well.

When A Parent's ‘I Love You' Means ‘Do As I Say' [NYT]
Parenting With Strings Attached [NYT]

In an article titled "Top 10 Signs You're Too Good For Her," writer Jason Moore lets all the bros know when it's time to let a girlfriend go:

No.10 - You're always dumbing down conversations around her
And it's not just her — it's her entire social universe. Her friends, her family and her coworkers all seem to have an extremely limited vocabulary, one that contains more four-letter expletives than a U.S. Army boot camp. If your cat can match her wit, it's one of the signs you're too good for her.

Ok, look. Nobody is saying that you need to (or should) stay with someone who doesn't stimulate you intellectually, but being smarter than someone doesn't necessarily make you better than they are. This isn't a case of someone not being "good enough" for you; it's just a case of someone not being the right match. I'm sure there's some oh-so-lucky lady out there who can match wits and pretentiousness with you, bro. Trust.

No.9 - She f*cks like a porn star

Sure, we all have those fantasies, but if your woman is taking you into uncharted territory that has serious repercussions for personal safety, there's a good chance it's a sign you're too good for her. No limits or boundaries in the intimate sphere means serious problems with self-respect and control in general. Sure the sex will be mind-blowing, but you'll never know where she's been or even how she learned her maneuvers, which can only mean one thing…

And you know what that "one thing" is, ladies! You're a total slut! Being skilled in bed, confident in one's sexuality and enjoying mixing things up a bit obviously means that you're a big ol' whore with a self-esteem problem, and Captain 2Good4U can't handle it. You are just too good at sex, and that means you're a terrible, terrible person. It couldn't possibly mean that your dumbass boyfriend isn't good enough to keep up with you, could it? Naw, that couldn't be. Men who are good in bed are studs, and women who are good in bed are filthy tramps who aren't worth the Axe bodyspray, right brah?

No.8 - None of your friends like her

Your friends don't like her and they seem to have independently verified, double-blind proof, that she's awful. You've spent a lot of time cultivating your social circle to serve as just this type of guard when you're in completely over your head, so trust your safety net. If she can't make simple conversation with your friends, it's a sign you're too good for her.

This is somewhat legit, in that often times, when people don't get along with their partner's social circle, there are problems. But using "bros before hos" as a means to gauge whether or not someone is "good enough" for you is a fairly juvenile solution. And if you need your friends to tell you that your girlfriend is "awful," you probably need to work on your own relationship skills.

No.7 - You're always encouraging her
If, on a regular basis, you find yourself encouraging your girlfriend to go out and really experience life outside the couch or mall, you're in all likelihood too good for her. There are certain people for whom ambition or enthusiasm for the future are just plain anathema. You're not going to be her catalyst and all you're doing now is wasting valuable energy and focus that you should be spending on your own life.

Again, this is more about a mismatch than being "too good" for someone. And not for nothing, but it might be a drag to have a boyfriend who finds it such a bitch to be supportive and understanding, which may account for her general lack of enthusiasm.

No.6 - She can't pay for anything

When it comes time to pick up the check for a dinner, a movie or just about anything else the two of you are undertaking she is nowhere to be found. There are two types of women for whom this is a problem: The first is just oblivious to the fact that she should actually pitch into the relationship. The second is just without the ability and just doesn't seem to have any income. Life's too short to waste time on either of them.

Ugh, poor people, am I right? It's not that she's cheap—she's broke, bro! That is like, the worst, man. I mean, why would anyone waste their time on a genuinely good person if said person can't even afford shots at T.J. McThursdaytown? You can't be seen riding around in your pimped out Toyota Corolla, blasting the latest Asher Roth, with some broke-ass chick in the passenger seat. It's a total no-go, bro. No go fo' sho.

No.5 - She's amazed by what you take for granted

At a certain point in life, certain realities set in and some things are just taken for granted. After college, a paycheck certainly falls into this category. If your girlfriend is dumbstruck by your ability to garner income, you're staring into the abyss of someone who cannot hold a job. This may be a warning sign of future problems.

Other things that she's awestruck by include paying bills, utilities or credit cards on a monthly basis. These should all let you know you're too good for her.

Again, we go back to the idea that women are dumb, immature, and lacking basic life skills. You should kick her to the curb, bro. Because if you don't, she might end up broke, and well, we know what a buzzkill that is, right?

No.4 - She has poor hygiene

If you've noticed on numerous occasions that there is a certain unpleasant odor emanating from your betrothed, it may be time to move on. Some people are merely untidy while others endanger your health. You can try mentioning in passing that there seems to be something amiss, but by and large, you're going to be facing a recurring and uphill battle if you want her to change.

First of all, "betrothed" means that she's already your fiance. She may be stank, but you already asked her to marry you, even though you find her disgusting, so it looks like you're the one with crap manners.

No.3 - She is devoid of natural curiosity

The universe is a strange and mysterious place. Every day you come across phenomena that nearly cry out for further explanation. At least you thought so, until you met your current girlfriend. If you've been together for a while and you've never heard her mention travel or a book she has read, you're in trouble. Conversations based upon first-hand experience from your day are both powerfully limiting and dull.

Have you noticed that every "tip" seems to revolve around the fact that some women just can't keep up with this dude's intellectually superior rock and roll lifestyle? At this point I'm just concerned about him. He seems to have issues getting over the dumb, broke, poorly smelling one who got away.

No.2 - She gets into trouble with the law

There is a time when authority figures are challenged and boundaries are defined. It's called adolescence. It's when your juvenile record can be sealed and expunged. If she's still shoplifting or finding herself on the business side of a DUI conviction, that's just reckless and is endangering your future. It shows that she hasn't developed a sense of what is right or wrong, nor does she have any respect for the possessions of others.

Is it me, or is the language here really creepy? Sure, he's talking about breaking the law, but the disdain he has for women who seemingly don't "know their place" is fairly evident, and ties in with the "she's too good in bed" tip. I'm not saying that we should all start dating criminals, but the way this guy talks about women who take control or break rules, be they laws or sexual taboos, as disrespectful and wrong, is quite telling.

No.1 - Her best asset is her looks

Relationships are a growing concern. You're supposed to find other qualities that endear her to you beyond the initial physical attraction. If you haven't found anything like that and in fact have found many qualities that the good looks are covering up for, then you're too good for her. You need to move on and find someone else. If you don't, you're selling yourself short. Strike out in a new direction and find someone who is both physically attractive as well as your equal or better in the other 98% of life.

She's too pretty, which means you're way too good for her. Obviously!

While there are some decent arguments to be made here, namely that relationships need to be based on more than looks, that couples should enjoy spending time together, and that money troubles often pull couples apart, the way this writer approaches these concepts is all wrong. His sense of superiority, aside from being irritating, also shows a self-centered approach to dating (and to life, really): it seems as though no one will ever be good enough for this dude, and when women are too good at something, he feels they need to be knocked down a peg. Perhaps this dude should just come right out and say it: it's not that women aren't "good enough" for him, it's just that's he's too in love with himself to admit that anyone else has any redeeming qualities whatsoever. But don't worry, dude. You'll always have your bros. And bromance, they say, is the greatest love of all.

Top 10: Signs You're Too Good For Her [AskMen]

While I do agree, to a certain extent, that every relationship has a "soundtrack" of sorts, I find that most real relationship soundtracks don't match up to the darling pitch perfect ones selected for the twee movie couples of the moment: while movie soundtracks certainly convey mood and emotion through carefully selected tunes and lyrics, a real relationship soundtrack is often made up of accidental sentimentals, the kinds of songs that come into your life at random times in order to shape a specific memory.

My bf and I have been together for nearly ten years (and we both like The Smiths, oh no!) and we have similar, but thankfully not identical, tastes in music. However, if you asked me to compile a musical relationship soundtrack, it would probably consist of cringe-worthy songs that happened to be playing at specific moments: the Vengaboys "Sha La La," for example, an incredibly terrible song which haunted us everywhere we went the first time I visited his hometown in Ireland. It's not the kind of song I'd carry around on my iPod, but it would have a spot on the soundtrack, like it or not, because when I hear it, I'm reminded of how it stalked us across the entire country for a solid 2 weeks, and how funny we thought it was when we were 18 or so.

I think we'd all like to think that our soundtrack would be perfectly selected, movie style, but life doesn't really work that way. It actually irritates me, to be honest, when soundtracks take over a romantic film, as the calculation behind it makes love itself seem easily packaged. This is not to say that the Vengaboys should make an appearance (for the love of god, NO) in any Zooey Deschanel movie anytime soon, but a couple bonding over a certain band—even the Smiths—doesn't spell out true love or disaster as much as it spells out a mutual appreciation for a certain aesthetic. And while that's all well and good, it's not necessarily a completely honest assessment of any relationship.

Sometimes, though the movies would have you believe otherwise, the happiest memories are attached to songs that don't seem to go along with the overall picture. And though I'd be happy enough listening to the Smiths forever and the Vengaboys never, on the rare occasion that I do hear "Sha La La" it never fails to make me laugh. You can pick the people you choose to spend your time with, but I guess you can't always pick the soundtrack to your memories.

Feel free to list the soundtracks to your relationships—cringe-worthy jams and all—in the comments below.

500 Days Message: Every Relationship Has A Soundtrack [LATimes]

Benz's positioning is quite provocative, and she makes sure to include a hefty disclaimer in her original piece:

Now, I want to be clear in stating that just because nonmonogamy holds up self-awareness, self-discovery, a lack of possession, and a sense of autonomy as the ideal does not mean it's always practiced that way. I am not so naïve as to think that every nonmonogamous couple has got these things down. But it seems to me that the structure society has created for monogamy is not one that coincides as easily with what I've described.

I also want to be clear in stating that I don't mean to say that these ideals are exclusive to nonmonogamy. Certainly, everyone should be striving for relationships where they are fully aware of their needs and do not see their partners are possessions. And of course there are monogamous couples who do not view themselves as one entity, but rather a pair of closely-bonded individuals. However, these are not things I see that often in monogamous couples, at least the ones I know. Maybe I just know the world's shittiest monogamists, but what I usually see is a lot of jealousy (a rather unhealthy amount, if you ask me), a lot "we" with no sense at all of "I" (again, sometimes dangerously so), and a complete lack of internal communication. Not only are all of these things present, but so many people don't see anything wrong with that, and that's the problem.

Benz explains that she finds many parts of working toward a non-monogamous ideal dovetailing with feminist beliefs. Aside from shifting the focus in a relationship away from the possession dynamic (which is one often cited by abusers, as in "you belong to me") non monogamy also requires that both parties are very clear about what they are looking for from each partner in each relationship. She notes:

Women especially are generally expected to put themselves last. They must worry about their children husbands, parents, jobs, household chores, etc. all before thinking about themselves. As feminists, we recognize that this should not be the case. And in a nonmonogamous relationship, this can't be the case because you aren't successful unless you're navigating according to your needs and desires.

Indeed, upending the predominant paradigm of relationships sounds intriguing. But can it work?

Frau Sally Benz actually gives up her second spot at Feministe, posting her thoughts to her own blog and opens the floor to a woman calling herself Eleanor Sauvage, a woman who has been a "secondary partner" in a non monogamous relationship. Sauvage begins by saying:

I actually think that whilst the commenters on both of the Feministe threads are right that poly can be very unfeminist and mono can be feminist, poly, precisely because poly is unusual and often marginalised, means that the kinds of gender dynamics which so often shape (especially heterosexual) mono relationships kinda have to be more up for grabs, for negotiation, for reshaping, in a poly relationship. That is, in our current context, there's a tendency for people to assume that they know how a mono relationship is meant to go: there are depictions of it everywhere! And this often means that mono relationships aren't explicitly negotiated; the power relations within them are often not the subject of discussion.

This is one of the points of the pro-nonmonogamy arguments that I found most intriguing - that their existence can force people to start navigating their actual idea of roles based on gender, and find a different path based on what works for each partner. Sauvage also points out how her own personal experiences led her to find nonmonogamy more beneficial to her mind state:

I wasn't sure how I'd feel about the poly thing, especially about being in the dreaded position of the secondary ('omg! you're the fucktoy!'), but I want to explain why this has worked and continues to work for me, and works for me precisely to counter my tendency to be self-effacing in relationships (as women are taught to be). First, I know that when he wants to be with me, he wants to be with me. He isn't feeling obligated, or like he ought to be spending time with me because we are in a relationship. He spends time with me for me. That has done some lovely things for my rather battered self-esteem, yet because the relationship is a secondary one, and we don't get to see each other that often, it also means that I really don't feel – as I have in the past – that my real sense of worth comes from the relationship. I feel recognised and valued for who I am, not for being a girlfriend. Interestingly, this also intervenes quite neatly in jealousy, which at least for me has arisen from the idea that ‘he'd rather be with her than with me!' Clearly, who I am to him is sexy, and fun, and interesting and exciting enough that he makes the time for me/us.

But, once again, the crux of Sauvage's argument is that the absence of established rules makes it easier to negotiate and navigate the relationships a bit better:

[T]hat negotiation is possible in a mono relationship-and is engaged in, in the ones that work, I think!-it's just that because poly is unusual, in my experience, people don't assume they have a right to things, or assume they're fulfilling your needs based on some pre-defined notion of what a relationship is, as is so clearly defined for mono relationships in almost every love story ever. And my articulation of my desires or needs don't need to be balanced against whether I think it's fair to expect this of my partner, because there's no presumption that they will simply have to fulfill it. Nor does my honest articulation of my desires become a potential space of breaking up because the person I'm with can't fulfill them (which is handy, given that I like girls as well, and would like to be able to like ‘em right up close, as it were, a set of desires I mostly kept from my previous partner, that my sweetie positively encourages me in). All the balancing acts involved in relationships are a bit more up for grabs because there's so few models for these relationships floating around.

While I am sure for many of us, the idea of nonmongamy is a lot to consider, I wanted to focus on the idea that both pieces brought up - what would our relationships with our partners be like without the idea of ingrained gender roles? And without the idea of possession?

*Note: In the comments to her original post, Frau Sally Benz explains why she prefers the term "nonmonogamy" to "polygamy":

# Frau Sally Benz says:
August 15th, 2009 at 10:06 am - Edit

Technically, the word polygamy means multiple marriages. Polygyny is one man with multiple wives, and polyandry is one woman with multiple husbands. These are the sociological definitions of these terms.

Nonmonogamy, on the other hand, does not necessarily have to be a marriage and it certainly doesn't need to be one man, many women or one woman, many men. It can be dating, swingers, gay relationships, etc. Say, for example, that in my nonmonogamous relationship, I am married to a primary male partner, and have a secondary female partner, but neither of those partners have any other partners (they don't even do anything with each other). This is a nonmonogamous relationship, but it certainly doesn't fit the traditional definition of polygamy.

Furthermore, polygamy is a loaded term in this country. When people hear the word polygamy, they think about Mormons with multiple wives, sometimes set up against the free will of the women. I would prefer to stay away from that image because what I'm talking about here is people willingly choosing to have multiple partners, however that is set up.

There are instances where a relationship is comprised of one man spiritually married to many women (since you can't legally marry more than one person, in the U.S. at least), or a woman spiritually married to many men. Those would fit the traditional definition of polygamy, but I'm not sure that they would call it that.

Nonmonogamy and Feminism: A Happy Couple [Feministe]
Another Perspective in Nonmonogamy [Feministe]
Cracking Myself Open [Jump Off the Bridge]

Catherine Rampell of the New York Times explores this phenomenon, noting that misers and free-spenders may take a liking to one another because "what we hate in ourselves, we also hate in other people. And the more we hate that quality in ourselves, the more we avoid it." In other words, if you're terribly cheap, and embarrassed about it, you're more likely to seek out a big spender who seems to be comfortable dropping some serious cash.

But after the initial thrill of living vicariously through one's partner is erased, the realities of marriage begin to set in: anyone who has ever gone out to dinner with a couple who cant stop fighting about money knows how awkward and intense it can be: money can turn a beautiful romance into a truly ugly partnership in the time it takes the waiter to bring the bill to the table.

Rampell notes that this is a phenomenon that can be applied to many aspects of dating: we often seek out someone who will "erase" the things we dislike about ourselves, but in the long run, we find that we'd be happier with someone who sees the world the way we do: "just like the proverbial woman who says she wants a nice guy but really goes for the bad boys," Rampell writes, "people are also just plain bad at predicting what they want in love and marriage."

I have seen this phenomenon work both ways: I've seen couples completely deteriorate due solely to money issues: "He's so selfish!" "She's so greedy" and so on and so forth, but I've also seen opposite spenders find a way to make it work: my mother likes to spend, and my father likes to save, and they've been together for over 35 years. (Although in fairness I think it's more like "My mother likes to shop, my father would wear the same jeans from 1984 if his wife and daughters didn't bother him about it.")

So what say you, commenters? Do you find yourself attracted to people with similar spending habits? Or do you prefer to seek out your opposite? And if so, how has it worked for you thus far?

I Say Spend. You Say No. We're In Love. [NYTimes]