I'm Religious so it's OK to Break the Rules

Underwear that says "shomer negiah," literally meaning "observant of the laws of touching," in Hebrew.

When I was moving to a new city a couple of years ago, someone from home introduced me over email to a friend of his, who we’ll call Ari. Ari was also new to the city, and although he was working long hours, he was in search of someone with whom he could occasionally enjoy dinner and a movie. On a rainy Sunday afternoon, we were slated to meet up for coffee.

I remember calling my observant Jewish friend ahead of our meeting; I knew Ari was pretty religious, but I just didn’t know how much so. Some religious Jews (just like observant members of religions) won’t engage in sexual relations before marriage. Some, of course, will, but others take it to the opposite extreme: they won’t even touch members of the opposite sex before they’re married, excluding family members. That’s right: no touching. Not a hug, not a kiss on the cheek, not even a handshake or a shoulder tap. How was I supposed to greet him since I didn't know his beliefs, I wondered? What if I were to try to shake his hand, only to have him retreat in disgust?

We showed up at the café and exchanged some sort of a verbal greeting. OK, I thought, he must be shomer negiah, or a Jewish person who won’t touch a member of the opposite sex before marriage. I actually didn’t even flinch-- he kept the entire interaction, including the initial meeting, completely comfortable. He even had me laughing and engaged in conversation. Here we were, hitting it off. I had been thinking I’d have nothing in common with this person and would ruin it with an inappropriate physical interaction that he’d be offended by!

As we finished our drinks we headed outside, only to be caught in a torrential downpour. Since my apartment was only a block away and he had to attend a fancy dinner in an hour, I offered to let him come upstairs and borrow a towel to dry off. In the elevator he poked me playfully. That was hint #1 that maybe, just maybe, he would be willing to touch girls and that—dare I say it-- he’d be someone I could see myself actually dating.

A couple of days later, Ari called me around 10:00pm. He had gotten out of his investment-banking job early for the night. He wanted to come up to “say hi” and I of course agreed.

I’m not going to go into details about what happened here, but let’s just say that as soon as I closed my door he felt it would be acceptable to aggressively kiss me. Lesson learned? He’s not shomer negiah. Hard puzzle to piece together, I know.

He didn’t want the interaction to end with the spit swapping, though. He kept insisting that he wouldn’t normally do more than kiss, but since I’m “such a cute girl” he just couldn’t help himself. Really, he used to kiss girls sometimes, but, well, actually he once used to sleep with girls, but he had since stopped because of his religion. I was just SO CUTE though that he couldn’t control himself and was willing to bend his religious rules.

Now, I’m a pretty naïve girl sometimes, especially exemplified by the fact that I even allowed him to come over at that hour. But, believe it or not, this time I caught on. I caught on and I called bullshit.

“I don’t care if you keep kosher [follow Jewish dietary laws] or pray every day, the fact that you’re lying to me makes you not a good person,” I said to him as I started to escort him out the door.

“Being a good person is all relative, R.,” he sung back with a slimy grin as I stood at the door waiting for him to put on his shoes.

I think he made a valid point, even though under the circumstances it proved irrelevant. Anyone trying to make inappropriate advances on a girl is, in my book, not a good person. Or, at the very least, they’re not using good and thoughtful judgment.

I’ve observed this tactic of some boys over and over: they use their apparent religious preferences to win over girls. Clearly if they’re religious they’re honest, focused and ethical men. Then, when they really want to get some action (because what real man doesn’t?) it’s suddenly OK for them to break the rules-- the very same rules that they think attracted the girl to them in the first place.

I used to know a couple who actually would openly advertise to the world that they were both shomer negiah. They’d refuse to hug their friends who were members of the opposite sex or even extend a helping hand unless it were a dire emergency. Yet, as soon as the two started dating, they’d spend weekends sleeping in the same room. They’d even go as far as to blow up an air mattress to make it appear that they weren’t sharing a bed, when everyone (including, yes, their almighty God) knew what was really going on.

In these types of situations, I have to ask: what kind of a façade are you putting up? It’s one thing if you’re legitimately religious and really follow all of the rules because they truly align with your beliefs. When you’re putting on an act, you’re only lying to yourself. As I've said in past posts, liars always get caught. Even if it’s not until hell’s infernos, they get caught.

For more on the concept of "shomer negiah," in the form of a fun blog, please visit http://www.yourtango.com//201075616/no-touching-allowed.

The Good on Paper Guy

::Author's Note::

As you may or may not already know, I'm currently in the process of writing a book-- a humorous anthology of stories of bad dates with men, narrated by women. In my search, I've come across some pretty silly, ridiculous and absurd stories from women all around the country. Melinda, a professional organizer from Texas who has her own blog, sent me her account of her worst date ever. After some back and forth, I realized that she'd be the perfect person to be my first guest blogger on this site. Not only that, but her story, one that became the focus of this post, relates to a topic that I was planning on writing about anyway.

So, read her blog. Enjoy it. Try to laugh. And, if you find that her story inspires you, write to me. I'm always looking for other guest bloggers and for new stories for my book. I'd love to include my readers in any or all of my endeavors.

The Good on Paper Guy

We all know him. You’ve probably even dated him once or twice. In case you’re lucky enough to have never run into this type, the good on paper guy is a guy that has every great quality going for him – good looks, great job, the car, then house, etc., ect. -

On paper.

However the live version just doesn’t add up. Something in real life is very different than the “paper version.” And it’s not good. Its seems to me like these guys have spent all of their time cultivating how they look on paper without focusing on themselves in real life. You may not always recognize what is off immediately, but it’s there.

Then there’s the time when the “off” reveals itself in fine fashion.

I met my good on paper guy through an online dating site. Good looking, great job, great personality. Everything a girl would want was right there, just leaping off the page. Emails were witty and phone calls just flowed effortlessly and crackled with chemistry.

So far, so good, right?

We set up a time to meet in person over dinner. He chose a really fantastic tapas restaurant. We started with a couple of cocktails. In person, as over the phone, conversation just flowed and snapped with wit. We order, contemplating all the choices and decide on an assortment to share – including lamb chops.

We’re finishing up entrees when he picks up the bone from his lamb chop and starts gnawing it clean! It would be one thing if we were at a BBQ joint, but we’re in a really nice restaurant and he was wearing a suit! Then, he reaches over to my plate, takes the lamb chop bone off my plate and cleans it off too. No “are you done with that?” or anything. Just grabbed and chewed! We’ve barely had physical contact past a hand shake and he’s putting the bone I ate from in his mouth. I was horrified but somehow managed to pretend it wasn’t happening. I just kept talking, looked away and took a drink from my cocktail. I could have won an Oscar for how well I pretended that didn’t just happen.

Later in our conversation (I stayed for dessert – I felt at this point that I’d really earned dessert), he brought up chewing off of my lamb chop bone. I told him that I wasn’t going to mention it but now that he brought it up, I thought that was pretty gross and inappropriate for the setting and a first date. Then he tells me that it was a TEST to see how I’d react. Apparently, he’d gone out with wretched women before that didn’t know how to act or something but he was testing me to see how I’d react to outlandish things. I told him I was raised right and my mother taught me how to behave in public. I also told him that this was our first and last date because testing me isn’t the best way to start off any type of relationship.

So here it is - starting any relationship, be it professional, friendship or romantic with a “test” is always a bad idea because it immediately puts doubt and mistrust into the foundation. Sure in theory I passed, but do you really want to be unknowingly tested when you were just out to meet someone and hopefully have a good time?

Being “good on paper” is worth absolutely nothing without a real person inside to back it up.

And, unless expressly invited, keep your hands off my dinner plate!

When not out creating more entertaining or bad date stories, Melinda is a professional organizer located in Fort Worth, TX. If your home is a hot mess, she can make it fabulous through her unique, effortlessly chic ideas and meticulous organization. You can learn more about her and her work at www.melindamassie.com and read more of her tips and advice on her blog, Organizing with a Side of Fabulous, at www.fabulousorganization.wordpress.com.

i love you but i'm not IN LOVE with you.

This past weekend I was shopping with a close friend. While walking past a row of dresses, she stopped and pointed to one.

“Do you like this one?” she asked.

“Mmm I like it but I don’t love it,” I answered.

“Haha, R.,” she continued, “that’s so funny. My friend and I were just having a conversation about this last week! She said that when she goes shopping she separates things into categories-- she either likes something, loves something or has to have something.”

My mind immediately flashed back to some dressing room (I think at a Nordstom somewhere) where the room included labeled hooks: “Like it” and “Love it.” It was a brilliant idea for someone like me-- obsessively anal and organized-- who does that naturally. Now there were printed labels. Amazing. Fabulous way to feed into my OCD behaviors.

Anyway, after we decided that we weren’t in love with the dress on the wall at Anthropologie that day, my friend and I got to talking. Maybe this seems a bit shallow, but in some ways making this distinction between articles of clothing that we like versus love versus must have parallels our experiences with men.

Allow me to explain. A lot of girls in this world date someone because they like them. They don’t love them, and they’re certainly not IN LOVE with them. But, at the same time, they don’t hate or even dislike the guy they’re with, either. Sometimes the relationship is one of convenience, other times it’s one where one party settles for what they think is the best they can find in terms of a romantic partner.

We decided that it’s almost sad to be with someone that you don’t love or aren’t in love with. Granted, unless you believe in love at first sight, it’s going to take some time before you put your partner into one of these categories. Right now I’m talking strictly while ruling out new or budding relationships. You can’t pick which hook to hang that guy on until you’ve been dating for a substantial enough period of time to accurately decide. But, even then, please don’t hang any man (or woman) on a hook in a dressing room. That just wouldn’t be nice. And it might creep out the girl picking up the unclaimed merchandise. Just a thought.

Love certainly develops and grows stronger over time. There’s no doubt in my mind about that. What I’ve also learned is that usually it takes even longer to decide that you’re actually in love with someone. Believe it or not, you can’t fall in love with someone as quickly as you fall in love with that shiny pair of stilettos at Saks. When you do fall in love with a person, it’s actually more emotional than when it’s with a pair of shoes. (This is where it’s obvious that I’m completely different than Carrie Bradshaw and she’s not all my inspiration, right?)

This passing conversation with my friend did make me stop to consider something important, though. I’m not suggesting that it’s wrong to be with someone you’re not in love with-- we all know there are certain situations where it’s acceptable for that sentiment to be non-existent-- but I am suggesting that things are much better when you do find true love. It feels amazing to be able to say that you refused to settle for however long of a period of time and ultimately found someone that you’re really just in love with-- I guess more or less on a simplistic level like that little black dress that you hung on the “MUST HAVE” hook in the store. Besides, you wouldn’t go out with a heinous pair of pants that you really didn’t like, so why bother doing the same with a boy?

It’s also important to consider the difference here of “love” versus “in love.” Just for the sake of comparison and analogy, I’m going to say that love is when you deem a potential purchase to be something you love-- you really really like it, to the point that you care about if you buy it and really feel the need to label it as being more than just something you like. When you’re in love with someone, it’s like you snatched that scarf right off the rack and immediately threw it into the “must have” pile. You can’t live without it. You need it. You think about it, even obsess about it. Your life wouldn’t be complete without this goddamn scarf that’s going to cost you a day’s paycheck. Maybe your feelings aren’t rational, but they’re there and they’re real. You just have to have that freaking scarf or your life might fall apart.

Now, I really hope that no one ever feels that strongly about a scarf, but I also hope that you now get my point. There’s a difference between that accessory that you really want and the one that you have to have. There’s also a major difference between that guy that you really like and the one who puts a smile on your face when you’ve just had a miserable day. Those are the keepers and maybe, just maybe, unlike that scarf, they’re worth a day’s pay, or perhaps more.

WARNING: Parental Controls

My fifth grade teacher told my class she was glad she didn’t have kids. Being at the beach and having a toddler pulling on her bathing suit screaming that he needed to go to the bathroom repulsed her. At the time I was horrified that she’d say that to a group of ten year old students and I sort of still am. I shouldn’t have been surprised, though. She’s the same lady who told girls to not let the boys into their bodies. And boys, you shouldn’t try to get into girls’ bodies, either.

Backing up to what she first said about the beach, we all know that there’s a good chance that many parents would say they concur. In reality, though, the American parent’s overattentive and overbearing personality on the whole overshadows that. Welcome to the twenty-first century, where moms and dads can’t help but consider each and every of their child’s (potential) needs, where no aspect of a kid’s life goes without being micromanaged.

Now, I’m no where near the point in life where I’m going to have a child, knock on wood. I do, however, find it interesting that I’m not only noticing things applicable to this topic, but also seriously considering and analyzing it. If nothing more, I think that even at this age I’m starting to recognize which ways I think I should and shouldn’t parent a kid when I have one-- while at the same time recognizing how nutty so many parents really are.

Let’s take yesterday, for example. I was in Zabar’s, an amazing Upper West Side (NYC) grocery store. Now, I’m sure I was already irked because there was a line I had to push through for proscuitto samples. I had already waited in line to score a strip of fresh rye bread! (I like this store for the samples, in case you wouldn’t already tell.) Anyway, I found myself becoming even more annoyed as I overheard a pushy mother speaking to her child, and that for sure didn’t make having to wait in line any easier.

“We’re speaking Italian now, not English!” she scolded the young boy in Italian.

The kid, about four years old, wiggled in his stroller and started screaming to voice his opinion. He hates speaking Italian. He wanted to speak English.

Call me crazy, but I call this contrived. Lady, maybe you speak Italian, but it’s pretty clear that it isn’t your first language. Also obvious? You want your kid to be talented and advanced. Not brilliant, though, because that he already is. Naturally. He’s your son.

I understand the whole wanting your kid to learn a foreign language concept. I’m actually a huge proponent, especially since I’m eternally grateful that I started learning Spanish at age eleven. But really, why has our society gotten to the point that it’s OK to force your child to speak another language other than English-- in New York-- just to have a more successful year in kindergarten!?

This situation represents just one tiny example of the whole “helicopter parent” type, or those who hover over their children and their actions at all times. As I was sitting and thinking about this incident on the train this morning, I happened to come across a New York Times article that references the same idea, Students, Welcome to College. Parents, Go Home by Trip Gabriel. (See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/education/23college.html). Instead of calling them “helicopter parents” as so many people have in recent years, the author calls them “velcro parents,” as if they’re glued to their kids. Also, they’re not talking about four year olds. In fact, they’re talking about kids 4.5 times their age: kids going to college.

You think that this obsessive behavior, actions that demonstrate that parents will do or say anything to make their kids the best and the happiest, would have simmered down by college. Apparently not. Such overbearing behavior lasts up until (and even through) the college years. The issue that this article brings up has to do with parents relinquishing control over their kids and how difficult they find it. I think it’s safe to assume that many of the parents that we’re talking about here are the same that insist their kids speak foreign languages while toting their sippy cups in public.

These parents don’t know where to draw the line then and they certainly don’t when they’re going to college. They don’t even know when it’s appropriate to leave and let them well... go to college. The article tells of parents who won’t leave their kid’s dorm room to let them settle down and even parents who insist on attending their kid’s first college class. Wow, that would have been an amazing way to pick up boys. Have mommy walk me to class. I'd be the most popular kid on my hall!

My point though in explaining all this is that I worry when this type of parenting will ever end. Will these kids ever not have to answer eight texts and two calls a day from their parents? Will parents ever stop controlling ever single detail of their kids’ life, or will it keep getting worse and worse and never turn back to the way it was? It sickens me to think of the (possible) extremes parents will go to in the future. I mean, if people are already controlling their children’s speech in public, what more can parents control? Who their kid flirts with, when and what pickup lines they use? People need to back off and calm down or else things are just going to get downright sicker. Your kids really will be OK if they don't speak four languages by age seven. I promise.