From Coffee Dates to Booty Calls: Unacceptable Dating Trends

It’d be a little inappropriate if a guy asked you outright for a first date that included not only dinner but a sleepover and breakfast as well. It’s not unheard of though, and it definitely happens all of the time. It would also be odd to take a date to meet the parents (or even the friends or extended family) on a first date. But, after talking to countless girls about their dating lives, I’ve learned that this experience, too, is also not unheard of. People have different expectations about what should happen on a first date and where it should be, but there are certain things that just cross the line. And, as Joey from Friends would say, sometimes people cross the line so far that the line just looks like a dot to them!

It’s important that I make something clear here. We often focus on when men have gone too far and have done too much on a first or second date. Perhaps they took the girl to somewhere too extravagant (a wedding or work gathering is clearly not appropriate for a first meeting) or they expected the meeting to go on for too long. Much too often, though, girls overlook the very opposite phenomenon: the guy who just won’t step things up.

For a first date, I like to suggest to both other people and myself to keep things simple. I’m talking a Starbucks get-together or a casual outdoor walk. No reason to have a higher-pressure situation, like dinner, where oh-so-many things could go wrong. Sure, with a coffee or tea date someone could spill, or with a walk someone like myself could trip and end up in the hospital. But there’s much less risk involved. Most importantly, it’s easier to scheme an exit plan when things are left simple. If you’re dying over dinner because that guy is just leaking partially chewed food from his mouth, there aint a hell of a lot you can do besides wait for him to finish and hope to god the check comes soon. And he better be paying. Especially after putting you through that disgusting behavior.

Basically a first date should be short, sweet, easy to get out of but, if it’s good enough, one that wants you leaving more. That said, what happens when a guy keeps the dates short and simple? What if he never makes the transition from your local coffee shop to even your neighborhood pizza joint? Or what if he does take you for dinner, but then never wants to even do as much as get ice cream afterwards?

That, my friends, is a problem. If a man really wants to get to know you and ultimately date you, he should, at the very least, buy you a nice (not necessarily expensive, but nice) meal and want to spend time with you. Under no circumstances should you “not be worthy” of his time for dinner; rather, if that’s the case, he’s not worth any of your time at all.

Another similar issue that arises is when you come across a guy who, sure, he’ll take you for dinner, and he might even take you out for drinks and a stroll afterward-- on weeknights. But when it comes to the weekends he disappears. Well, listen to me, and listen to me well: that’s not acceptable behavior. If a guy isn’t willing to fit you into his oh-so-busy weekend schedule that doesn’t even have a second for you to see each other, then well, he’s just not what you’re looking for. A guy who’s truly into you should not only want to see you on the weekends (or all the time, for that matter, although seeing each other too often too soon is a totally different issue), but on weekend nights as well. He should be thrilled to share your company on a Friday night, rather than be out boozing with his bros and picking up hos. (Alright, I tried to rhyme, but actually if you think about it, there might be SOME sense in what I was trying to say.)

It all boils down to this: it’s totally fine if a guy starts things off slowly. He should. No doubt about it. But, if after a few dates he’s unwilling to, say, devote an entire meal to you or pen you in for a weekend meet-up, he’s just not worth your time. Remember, it’s not at all about buying you things, and a guy should never feel as though he always has to buy you dinner. (You should be doing it an equal amount for him, ladies!) But, he should be willing to sometimes take you out, and those sometimes should definitely be occasionally during prime going-out hours. If he doesn’t man up and have this happen, I’d argue that he really should be out with his boys looking for women-- trashy women not including yourself-- who will tolerate this disgusting behavior.


PS: Please remember that there are exceptions to every rule. Maybe your guy works night shifts and can’t have dinner. Consider other factors before jumping to any conclusions, but please oh please, don’t make excuses for him. He’s not even your boyfriend yet! Booty calls and completely cost-free dates aren’t going to cut it, and they damn well shouldn’t.

Love vs. In Love

I know that I haven't been writing multiple posts per week like I was this summer, but that's just because life has picked up and become busier. While it's definitely a good thing that I run myself ragged until I come home and crash at night, it means less energy to write for my readers. But don't think I haven't been thinking about you. The list of potential blog topics that I've generated has been growing steadily. Just today, while I was on a particularly head-clearing run, I came up with a few fresh ones. But even though that list has stretched in length, I think it's time that I tackle a big, important topic that countless people have encouraged me to think about: LOVE.

Over the past couple of months, I've found myself in conversation with friends about what it means to be "in love" with someone, versus to just "love" someone. Some people habitually use those phrases interchangably, but I really don't think that's always appropriate. I sure hope that we love the people that we're in love with, but do we have to be in love with those we love?

Absolutely not.

On the most fundamental of levels, think of it this way. Are you in love with your mother? If you are, stop reading. Stop reading immediately. Get yourself into the next available shrink. I'm serious. In all honesty, though, do you love your mother? (Or, if not your mother, then your father, your brother, your aunt, whatever other family members?) Most of us can probably say that yes, we love at least one of our family members. But does that mean that we're in love with them? I sure hope to God not!

What's the difference here? Well, it's romance of course. We love our family members, meaning that we care about them in an extremely deep sense. Perhaps it means that we'd do anything for them to ensure their happiness and/or wellbeing, or maybe it means that if something were to happen to them, we'd be forever changed and devastated. We love them in the sense that they mean a heck of a lot to us, but we don't love them in the way that makes us want to crawl into bed naked with them. Right there, that's the basic explanation of loving someone versus being in love with them. (I'm sick and twisted, I know, but just hang out and see where I'm going.)

Now, movies and romantic pieces of literature often consider that silly old notion of love at first sight. Do I believe in it? No, I definitely don't. I'm completely sure that it takes a long time to get to know someone well enough to love them, that love isn't based off of looks or initial interactions. Yes, both of those things can start us on a journey to ultimately finding love, but can you really say that you know your life would be ruined if that guy you saw across the bar tragically died tomorrow? Love is deeper than appearances, more serious than a crush. More serious than even the biggest of crushes. Really.

That said, just because you love someone doesn't mean you're in love with them. Maybe you care about them deeply and know that they hold a special place in your heart. But would your heart be broken if they were to disappear tomorrow? Would you forever compare every other person of romantic interest to that one person, always holding them in higher regard than the rest?

A friend and I were talking about this and we came to one conclusion, a partial answer to a question that really has no answers. We decided it's easier to tell if you were actually in love with someone in retrospect than it is in the present. When we're dating someone, we might THINK we're in love. We decide that we really rely on our partner for at least some of our happiness, that our life would be changed without them. We think about this even if, in the back of our mind, we know that they're maybe not "the one," or that they have some qualities about them that drive us so insane that we can't really overlook them and focus on the good.

Looking back on past relationships, though, is what often allows us to determine if we were really in love, or rather just having a good time with a person that maybe we even, to some degree, loved at the time. If you look back on that first relationship that you felt "in love," how does it make you feel now? If that person were to contact you right now, would you get butterflies in your stomach? Or do they really not mean a whole heck of a lot to you anymore? Do you remember what it felt like to kiss them, or is that a memory so distant that your mind has sort of just forgotten it?

Although I'm stating the obvious, I think that looking back on situations is what really allows us to evaluate them. Maybe we can't verify that we were really in love until it's too late, until our object of affection has married and had kids. Or, conversely, what I consider a good situation is looking back and not feeling anything about that man who broke our heart or that girl who crushed us. Maybe, just maybe, that means that we really weren't all that in love, even though we thought we were at the time and in the moment.

I've come to two conclusions while having written this post. One is that it's true, it really takes time to both fall in love with someone and to love them deeply. I don't care what Hollywood says, but you can't love someone when you first meet them, as you simply just don't know enough about them to love their entire being. Two is that time really does make a huge difference. When we break up with someone, we can often feel this awful pain that seems as if it will never go away. But, when we let the time pass and we look back on our relationship with that other person, sometimes time has allowed us to realize that they didn't mean as much to us as we thought. (Of course, the opposite can also be true.) Point is, I don't think we always can accurately assess what we have when we have it. But, if feelings of love and being "in love" continue over time without any doubt, then maybe, just maybe, we've found something worthwhile and what we can actually call "true love."