Edinborough Housewife on dating

  • Thread starter Thread starter Xantippe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
X

Xantippe

Guest
The Edinborough Housewife (formerly Seraphic Singles) has a primer for dating up:

edinburghhousewife.blogspot.com/2015/08/a-dating-manifesto.html#comment-form

Her coffee/1st date/2nd date advice (while not holy writ) is generally sound and won’t get you into trouble. It’s long, but I suggest that anybody who is just getting into dating (or is interested) read the whole thing.

Some quotes:

“Therefore before any consideration of dating, I highly recommend that you choose a trade or profession and get cracking. If you dream of being a stay-at-home mother, find a trade or profession that involves what you like most about homemaking. Pastry chef, for example. Early Childhood Education. Tailor. Carpenter. Gardener. Nurse. Get qualified. Get a job. Show yourself to be economically self-sufficient.”

“If someone asks you out for coffee, and you find him or her a reasonably interesting and pleasant human being, and you are Single, accept. (If you are married, there are many more qualifiers.) A coffee is just a coffee.”

“Women: I firmly believe that any pleasant man who shares your core values deserves two dates before you give up on the idea of ever feeling physically attracted to him.”

“Men: Don’t date girls you don’t think are pretty. Don’t ask them, and don’t accept dates with them. Coffee, yes. A coffee is just a coffee. Network, network.”

“5. Listen and don’t ignore red flags just because he/she is cute. For some reason, men love to tell you at least some of their bad stuff on the first date. If he’s an alcoholic or thinks he may be one, he will very often tell you, or at least hint. Do not ignore this. When men tell you they are bad guys, they are not being modest or funny. They are bad guys. You cannot save them. Save yourself.”

“8. However, just because he/she is a dork on the first date doesn’t mean he/she is actually a dork. First dates often make people nervous, over-eager, and generally an embarrassment to everyone. And therefore, unless this person has revealed (consciously or unconsciously) to you that, although they share your core values, they have serious personality problems, you should go on Date 2. I don’t care if there’s no spark yet.”

“Nota Bene: if you accept the third date only because you are lonely or flattered by the attention or for any other reason than that this person has made your marriage-potential short list, you are now leading him/her on. This is not cool. Break it off as soon as you realize your impure motives.”

“But I’m not really worried about tears and hurt feelings. I’m more worried about Single Girls saying “No” to the right boys too soon and “Yes” to the wrong boys long after a “No” was called for.”

“And don’t send the girl umpteen emails between appointments. Totally unnecessary and bad psychology. Short delays are important.”

I would add the following suggestion to women. If it becomes clear that the first date is a no-hoper (not because of lack of spark, but because of non-negotiable problems), make sure to pay your share. If you think he’s a possible, let him pay for you on a first date, but tell him that you’ll invite him out next time and it will be your treat. And then do it. And then the ball is in his court. This system has the merit that once couples are serious, they do tend to trade off while dating anyway, so you might as well start earlier rather than later. It demonstrates your enthusiasm for him, and the alternate hospitality preserves the distinction between friends going out and a date-date, as well as allowing each to choose a form of hospitality that is affordable for them.
 
Again, none of this is gospel truth (there is no Big Book of Dating), but these are workable and reasonably fair systems. There is a huge etiquette crisis in modern dating (women that feel offended by having to pay, men that feel offended by having to pay, men that feel offended not being expected to pay, women feeling offended by not being expected to pay) that it’s unfortunately possible to offend pretty much everybody.
 
I found the OP to be quite reasonable. (And I like Scottish women 🙂

In any case, get yourself to a place or situation where you are likely to meet like-minded people. Trust me, she’ll notice you as you notice her. Be casual. Talk. Enjoy the company and move on. If it gets awkward, depending on the severity, you might say, “Sorry. I didn’t mean any offense.” After all, you are just getting started - maybe.

If you consider yourself a reasonable, well-mannered person who is reasonably sociable, then go for it. If she is not …

Ed

All quoted from “The Common Book Of Dating Which Is Constantly Being Ignored Today” - 2,000th printing.
 
Again, none of this is gospel truth (there is no Big Book of Dating), but these are workable and reasonably fair systems. There is a huge etiquette crisis in modern dating (women that feel offended by having to pay, men that feel offended by having to pay, men that feel offended not being expected to pay, women feeling offended by not being expected to pay) that it’s unfortunately possible to offend pretty much everybody.
If you want to date, shouldn’t you be willing to pay for the date especially if you are the one who asked for the date?
 
If you want to date, shouldn’t you be willing to pay for the date especially if you are the one who asked for the date?
Yep. Traditional hospitality etiquette is that the host (the person that invites) pays for food and entertainment.
 
Okay, so you should not date if you you don’t have a trade and are economically independant? While I understand some of the thought behind this, it means my wife and I likely would have dated 8 years before we got married and not had our two oldest kids. Actually according to this guideline my wife and I should never have started to dated since she was 16 at the time.

Given that most adults are not truely economically independant until their late 20s it also essentially cuts off 10+ years in a couple’s childbearing years. I’ve met many couples who planned to have a large family only to discover that fertility in your early 30s is not as great as in your late teens or early to mid 20s.

I simply hate advice that basically says “never accept relying on a man (or woman)”. It essentially says hope for the best, but plan for the worst. Yes we all know men and women who got burned when a spouse left them with no way to support them, but it ignores all those happy marriages that happened when one of the other was not economically independant.
 
Okay, so you should not date if you you don’t have a trade and are economically independant? While I understand some of the thought behind this, it means my wife and I likely would have dated 8 years before we got married and not had our two oldest kids. Actually according to this guideline my wife and I should never have started to dated since she was 16 at the time.

Given that most adults are not truely economically independant until their late 20s it also essentially cuts off 10+ years in a couple’s childbearing years. I’ve met many couples who planned to have a large family only to discover that fertility in your early 30s is not as great as in your late teens or early to mid 20s.

I simply hate advice that basically says “never accept relying on a man (or woman)”. It essentially says hope for the best, but plan for the worst. Yes we all know men and women who got burned when a spouse left them with no way to support them, but it ignores all those happy marriages that happened when one of the other was not economically independant.
  1. I think DCM meant to put oneself on the path to a livelihood, rather than actually have the livelihood already. So, be going somewhere, not already be there. DCM wants women to be able to signal, “Hey, I’m not a gold-digger! I like you for you, not because you’re going to support me.”
  2. I don’t think she’s saying "never accept relying on a man (or woman). She’s the “Edinborough Housewife,” after all.
 
Okay, so you should not date if you you don’t have a trade and are economically independant? While I understand some of the thought behind this, it means my wife and I likely would have dated 8 years before we got married and not had our two oldest kids. Actually according to this guideline my wife and I should never have started to dated since she was 16 at the time.

Given that most adults are not truely economically independant until their late 20s it also essentially cuts off 10+ years in a couple’s childbearing years. I’ve met many couples who planned to have a large family only to discover that fertility in your early 30s is not as great as in your late teens or early to mid 20s.

I simply hate advice that basically says “never accept relying on a man (or woman)”. It essentially says hope for the best, but plan for the worst. Yes we all know men and women who got burned when a spouse left them with no way to support them, but it ignores all those happy marriages that happened when one of the other was not economically independant.
High school: movie and pizza. Proper date for that age. Guy pays.
College: Lots of free stuff (concerts, plays, exhibits) coffee, pizza, etc. He pays.
Graduate: Simple at first but time to ask her out on a date like dinner and a show and he pays.

I have sons. Never subsidized their dates. If they wanted to date, they had to earn the money to pay for that activity. And they did.
 
I hope and expect that my kids are economically independent by 22/23 but I don’t know that they’ll necessarily be ready for marriage at that point. I’ve gotten leery about people marrying right out of college when they haven’t yet demonstrated the ability to do basic housekeeping, hold down a job for longer than a term at a time, do basic financial stuff, get out of bed before 9 AM, etc.

But I do have a fairly basic notion of what economic independence means. If my kids are in graduate school and getting a graduate stipend (say $15k-$20kish) and nobody is asking me for money, I would deem that economic independence. My husband and I got married years ago as graduate students and we never asked our families for a dime from that day forward.
 
Most of this seems reasonable but I find myself side-eyeing the following:
Women: I firmly believe that any pleasant man who shares your core values deserves two dates before you give up on the idea of ever feeling physically attracted to him."
"Men: Don’t date girls you don’t think are pretty. Don’t ask them, and don’t accept dates with them.
Why the double standard, here? Yes, I know, “men are more visual”, yadda yadda. Well, it certainly might be more common for women to eventually start to find a man attractive even if she doesn’t right away, than for this to happen with a man regarding attraction to a woman. But she seems to be saying that it NEVER happens for men. That kind of attitude turns me off.
 
Most of this seems reasonable but I find myself side-eyeing the following:

Why the double standard, here? Yes, I know, “men are more visual”, yadda yadda. Well, it certainly might be more common for women to eventually start to find a man attractive even if she doesn’t right away, than for this to happen with a man regarding attraction to a woman. But she seems to be saying that it NEVER happens for men. That kind of attitude turns me off.
That was probably the only thing I disagreed with as well. For one thing, women put a very different emphasis on appearance on a date than they do, say, for volunteer work at the food pantry that requires a hairnet for food safety guidelines.

Then again, from what I understand, many men can be or are attracted to lots of different “types” so it may not rule out as many people as you’d think. The man who is very specific about looks is probably much more rare (though sometimes much more vocal…:p)
 
That was probably the only thing I disagreed with as well. For one thing, women put a very different emphasis on appearance on a date than they do, say, for volunteer work at the food pantry that requires a hairnet for food safety guidelines.

Then again, from what I understand, many men can be or are attracted to lots of different “types” so it may not rule out as many people as you’d think. The man who is very specific about looks is probably much more rare (though sometimes much more vocal…:p)
You’re right about the food pantry example. However, wouldn’t it be crushing to be taken out by a guy that looks disappointed and blurts out, “I thought you would clean up better”? Thanks, buddy!

Also, “pretty” here may just mean “pretty to him.”

Maybe we should add to “any pleasant man” “who doesn’t make you shiver with revulsion at the thought of him touching you.”

By the way, I botched the spelling of Edinburgh in the thread title. Oops. It’s EdinBURGH Housewife."
 
You’re right about the food pantry example. However, wouldn’t it be crushing to be taken out by a guy that looks disappointed and blurts out, “I thought you would clean up better”? Thanks, buddy!

Also, “pretty” here may just mean “pretty to him.”

Maybe we should add to “any pleasant man” “who doesn’t make you shiver with revulsion at the thought of him touching you.”

By the way, I botched the spelling of Edinburgh in the thread title. Oops. It’s EdinBURGH Housewife."
👍
It’s really about giving people a fair chance. Since first dates are pretty intimidating, one can dismiss someone who might be a good match.
 
You’re right about the food pantry example. However, wouldn’t it be crushing to be taken out by a guy that looks disappointed and blurts out, “I thought you would clean up better”? Thanks, buddy!

Also, “pretty” here may just mean “pretty to him.”
You’d hope they’d have more tact than that…but hey, it is just a coffee the first time, yes?

I also think that was a good choice of words on her part - “pretty” does not mean “stunning” or “gorgeous” or “mega hottie.” “Pretty” is within reach for most of us, at least for the eye of a reasonably well-adjusted male. Not ANY man, necessarily, but it’s better than chasing a fantasy image as our only hope.
 
High school: movie and pizza. Proper date for that age. Guy pays.
College: Lots of free stuff (concerts, plays, exhibits) coffee, pizza, etc. He pays.
Graduate: Simple at first but time to ask her out on a date like dinner and a show and he pays.

I have sons. Never subsidized their dates. If they wanted to date, they had to earn the money to pay for that activity. And they did.
Movies? Today? Seriously?

Ed
 
You’d hope they’d have more tact than that…but hey, it is just a coffee the first time, yes?

I also think that was a good choice of words on her part - “pretty” does not mean “stunning” or “gorgeous” or “mega hottie.” “Pretty” is within reach for most of us, at least for the eye of a reasonably well-adjusted male. Not ANY man, necessarily, but it’s better than chasing a fantasy image as our only hope.
But “pretty” is again about looks and a certain level of physical attraction. But the advice to women seems to be that they should give men a chance even if they have no physical attraction at all.

I must admit, I tend to dismiss generic “dating advice” in general because so many of those tips imply that all women are the same when it comes to what they “want” in a match, which is not true. Same for men.
 
Well, I know plenty of guys who think their beloved is gorgeous…and they’re actually very plain. Same with women who think their hubs is cute, where others think he’s homely. 🤷
We can’t discount attractiveness and the ability to attract.
Simply because that varies so much from each individual.
 
Well, I know plenty of guys who think their beloved is gorgeous…and they’re actually very plain. Same with women who think their hubs is cute, where others think he’s homely. 🤷
We can’t discount attractiveness and the ability to attract.
Simply because that varies so much from each individual.
I agree with this, but the advice seems to women is not one to give a man a chance that their friends, or “society”, or whatever, find unattractive. Of course different people have different tastes. The advice is to give men a chance and to date them, who they themselves don’t find physically attractive at all.

But she does not give men the same advice. Indeed, she suggests they not date a woman AT ALL, unless they already find them “pretty”, which indicates a certain level of attraction. So she apparently thinks that if a man doesn’t instantly find a woman physically attractive, it will never happen. I wonder how she’d even know, since she’s not a man herself.
I’m more worried about Single Girls saying “No” to the right boys too soon and “Yes” to the wrong boys long after a “No” was called for."
But apparently she isn’t worried about single men doing this? Then why is she giving advice to men at all? Maybe she should edited all of that out, and marketed this article as one that is meant to provide only women with dating advice, since she seems mostly concerned about women anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top