Edinborough Housewife on dating

[Xantippe]

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.

True true.

My husband thinks I’m cute, while the rest of the world mostly doesn’t. But, it’s very important that he thinks I’m cute. It doesn’t matter at all what anybody else thinks.

 

[Xantippe]

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.

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.

There’s probably very little practical difference between a woman’s “doesn’t fill me with revulsion” and a man’s “pretty.” Functionally speaking, I think it probably works out to more or less the same thing.

I suspect her advice is largely intended for people that already know each other at least as acquaintances, so it’s not a question of finding someone “instantly” attractive.

She is primarily interested in the women, so the advice to men isn’t as fully fleshed out.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Has anyone priced movie and pizza lately? That’s an expensive date for high schoolers on Friday or Saturday nights. Works best if the couple stop at Costco for the $1.99 slices before hitting the Tuesday $3 matinees.

 

[Xantippe]

Oh my. Now you’re just toying with me…

Ed

Huge red hair, coming right up!

librarything.com/author/cummingsdorothy

Actually come to think of it, being a redhead probably has shaped DCM’s perspective with regard to gender and attraction. There are a lot of men that seem to LOVE redheads. Having a superficial feature like that that attracts so much male attention would tend to affect one’s view of how attraction works. Presumably, when one has a striking physical feature like that, it’s clear that what’s happening is that men are thinking, “Wow! A redhead! And she’s so sweet and smart!” rather than “Wow! She’s so sweet and smart! And she’s a redhead!”

 

[DarkLight]

One other thought on a woman developing skills to support herself - it also helps in having a life and interests outside of marriage. I have noted among friends my age that those who are focusing too much of their hopes and attentions on marriage are very rarely the ones who have a lot of success in keeping significant others. Overmuch dependence is not attractive in this day and age.

 

[pianistclare]

One other thought on a woman developing skills to support herself - it also helps in having a life and interests outside of marriage. I have noted among friends my age that those who are focusing too much of their hopes and attentions on marriage are very rarely the ones who have a lot of success in keeping significant others. Overmuch dependence is not attractive in this day and age.

That’s a great point.
Guys seem to like over-achievers…not because they don’t want to share the workload or responsibility…but because those women are just more interesting.

 

[Xantippe]

That’s a great point.
Guys seem to like over-achievers…not because they don’t want to share the workload or responsibility…but because those women are just more interesting.

Also, a higher energy level is attractive by itself, I think.

 

[UbiCaritas]

One other thought on a woman developing skills to support herself - it also helps in having a life and interests outside of marriage. I have noted among friends my age that those who are focusing too much of their hopes and attentions on marriage are very rarely the ones who have a lot of success in keeping significant others. Overmuch dependence is not attractive in this day and age.

Very good point, that. I think it ties into having something to talk about, which I as a SAHM still struggle with sometimes. I mean, yes, I could discuss the fascinating discovery of the fruit intake level which will cause the baby’s diaper to actually explode, but most people aren’t terribly interested in that sort of topic for some reason I can’t quite fathom.

Having my hobbies, and some time in which to pursue them, has been vital for me. DH isn’t especially interested in quilting, mind you, but he likes that I enjoy it, and so he’ll listen to me talk about it. We both enjoy books and history, so I’ll get a book on some aspect of political or military history from the library every so often, and that’ll give us things to talk about, as well. I had to make time for these things, though. Similarly, my best friend and I, also a SAHM, have an ongoing interest in theology, philosophy, and Catholic parenting, and one of the ways we keep in touch and intellectually stimulated, even though we’re four hours apart, is to have long phone calls in which we talk about “I heard this theory about Limbo, what do you think?” and so on. Very nerdy, no doubt, but it works for us.

 

[pianistclare]

Also, a higher energy level is attractive by itself, I think.

For sure. Nobody finds a slug attractive.
Especially in a relationship.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

There’s probably very little practical difference between a woman’s “doesn’t fill me with revulsion” and a man’s “pretty.” Functionally speaking, I think it probably works out to more or less the same thing.

I suspect her advice is largely intended for people that already know each other at least as acquaintances, so it’s not a question of finding someone “instantly” attractive.

She is primarily interested in the women, so the advice to men isn’t as fully fleshed out.

This just might be my own neuroses affecting my perceptions, but I still see a big difference between a woman considering a man for a date that a woman is not repulsed by, but feels no attraction to either, and a man considering a woman for a date who he feels just enough physical attraction to, to call “pretty”, even if he doesn’t find her “drop-dead gorgeous” as another poster stated.

Since the advice states that women should give such men at least two dates before “you give up on the idea of ever feeling physically attracted to him”, which IMHO makes it very obvious that she is advising women to date men they have no physical attraction to at all. Which is very different from the advice she gives men, to NOT date women they don’t at least find “pretty”.

Especially because it seems most women, especially those with conservative religious beliefs, do this anyway, often way beyond the two dates. I’ve seen many topics on CAF, and other religious forums, where women state that while their BF or even fiance is a good man who she shares the same values, but that she’s just not attracted to him physically.

And many CAF posters advice such a woman to go ahead and marry him anyway, that physical attraction is just one component of marriage, that even if she married someone she was attracted to, there was no guarantee she’d still feel that way after years of marriage, etc.

But it’s much less common for a man to wind up in the same dilemma, because most men don’t need to be told by a random advice columnist to only date women they find pretty. That’s what they’re already doing. About the only time I see a man posting about the same dilemma, is if he’s one of those who feels unattractive himself and is “desperate” to find a wife.

Anyway, I realize that I might be over-reacting because I’m very sensitive to sexual double standards anyway. One aspect of Catholic teaching on sexual morality that I find appealing, is how it actually holds men to the same standards as women. As opposed to many Protestant approaches. (Though I have noticed that some individual Catholics still are influenced by the “double standard” anyway.)

 

[edwest2]

Huge red hair, coming right up!

librarything.com/author/cummingsdorothy

Actually come to think of it, being a redhead probably has shaped DCM’s perspective with regard to gender and attraction. There are a lot of men that seem to LOVE redheads. Having a superficial feature like that that attracts so much male attention would tend to affect one’s view of how attraction works. Presumably, when one has a striking physical feature like that, it’s clear that what’s happening is that men are thinking, “Wow! A redhead! And she’s so sweet and smart!” rather than “Wow! She’s so sweet and smart! And she’s a redhead!”

Trust me. It starts with attraction but if she’s not actually sweet or smart, it ends.

Ed

 

[pianistclare]

Trust me. It starts with attraction but if she’s not actually sweet or smart, it ends.

Ed

YUP.
Same for guys.

 

[BartholomewB]

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.

“Pretty” can mean different things to different people, and even different things to the same person in different contexts. At one extreme it can mean “irresistible” and at the other extreme it can merely mean “not hopelessly unattractive.” In between those two extremes there can be a wide range of meanings. It’s certainly possible, for example, to be on friendly terms with a woman you know slightly, but at the same time to have no interest in dating her, until one day something happens to make you change your mind. But that’s not going to happen, I think, if she’s completely off the “pretty” spectrum altogether.

 

[Xantippe]

Since the advice states that women should give such men at least two dates before “you give up on the idea of ever feeling physically attracted to him”, which IMHO makes it very obvious that she is advising women to date men they have no physical attraction to at all. Which is very different from the advice she gives men, to NOT date women they don’t at least find “pretty”.

Especially because it seems most women, especially those with conservative religious beliefs, do this anyway, often way beyond the two dates. I’ve seen many topics on CAF, and other religious forums, where women state that while their BF or even fiance is a good man who she shares the same values, but that she’s just not attracted to him physically.

And many CAF posters advice such a woman to go ahead and marry him anyway, that physical attraction is just one component of marriage, that even if she married someone she was attracted to, there was no guarantee she’d still feel that way after years of marriage, etc.

But it’s much less common for a man to wind up in the same dilemma, because most men don’t need to be told by a random advice columnist to only date women they find pretty. That’s what they’re already doing. About the only time I see a man posting about the same dilemma, is if he’s one of those who feels unattractive himself and is “desperate” to find a wife.

Anyway, I realize that I might be over-reacting because I’m very sensitive to sexual double standards anyway. One aspect of Catholic teaching on sexual morality that I find appealing, is how it actually holds men to the same standards as women. As opposed to many Protestant approaches. (Though I have noticed that some individual Catholics still are influenced by the “double standard” anyway.)

1. I think DCM believes that women are slower than men to come to a decision about the physical attractiveness of a person of the opposite sex, and that men are less likely to change their snap initial judgment in a positive direction. That’s probably not always the case, but it often seems to be.
2. Remember, she’s encouraging the women to do the coffee + two dates, but ONLY that if they aren’t wildly interested in the person after that. Regarding conservative women, I think she’d say that there are two opposite errors being committed: a) not giving a minimal chance to eligible men and b) spending way too much time with either non-eligible men or eligible men that they don’t actually like that much. Part of the issue both with a) and b) is (ironically) being too marriage-minded and goal-oriented about relationships. From what one hears, in a lot of conservative religious circles, there’s so much intense pressure on marriage that people are thinking too soon about it–so she often advises single women that they don’t need to accept or decline a coffee invitation with the idea that they wouldn’t marry this particular person (that they barely know). Coffee is just coffee, she says, so relax. First do the coffee and two dates, then think about whether you’re attracted or not.

For an example of waaaay too much intense pressure on the front end–see the Duggars and other “courtship” families.

1. DCM is both a big romantic and she had the unpleasant (but very educational) experience of a divorce and annulment in her mid/late 20s, so she’s actually very big on not marrying people that we aren’t CRAZY about. She’d be the last person to shove women into marriages with men that they are meh about. (I agree 100% on that.) If you can’t say, I’d have 8 kids with this person, I’d move to Antarctica for them, I’d study Albanian for them! then I think that’s a sign of it not being the right person.
2. Anybody that advise women to marry men that they are meh about is very unwise. If a chaste woman isn’t virtually climbing the walls with pent-up desires over her boyfriend (and she does climb the walls for other men), marrying the boyfriend would be very imprudent.
3. “But it’s much less common for a man to wind up in the same dilemma, because most men don’t need to be told by a random advice columnist to only date women they find pretty.”

The obvious can be surprisingly helpful. (Buckle your seatbelt! Don’t smoke at the gas pumps! Attach your oxygen mask before assisting children!)

dearwendy.com/my-girlfriend-is-too-overweight/

That poor woman would be so much better off if her boyfriend hadn’t wasted 1.5 years of her life. Her self-esteem is also about to be nuked by finding out that he minded her being fat the whole time. I don’t think he did her any favors.

I also know a guy in real life that confessed (around the time his wife of around 4 years was divorcing him), that he’d never thought she was pretty.

So, there do seem to be men that are seriously dating and marrying women that they find barely attractive.

1. Regarding double standards, this particular double standard is only applied for a very limited period of time (however long it takes to do coffee and two dates), so it’s relatively harmless.

 

[Xantippe]

“Pretty” can mean different things to different people, and even different things to the same person in different contexts. At one extreme it can mean “irresistible” and at the other extreme it can merely mean “not hopelessly unattractive.” In between those two extremes there can be a wide range of meanings. It’s certainly possible, for example, to be on friendly terms with a woman you know slightly, but at the same time to have no interest in dating her, until one day something happens to make you change your mind. But that’s not going to happen, I think, if she’s completely off the “pretty” spectrum altogether.

That’s what I was suspecting–that “pretty” is actually not that high a bar.

Related (and very funny):

theonion.com/article/woman-at-farscape-convention-has-dangerously-infla-1169

 

[Sarcelle]

The idea or standard of beauty also varies by culture. Growing up, I thought you had to be white to be considered pretty. Why? Because of the magazines often showcased models that were more often than not blonde and blue-eyed. I was not overweight, in fact I was underweight, but I was not blonde or blue-eyed.

Well, not being white, I grew up thinking I was ugly.

However, I actually do agree with the advise for men to date only women who they think are pretty. Why? To avoid wasting both the man and woman’s time. If a certain man does not find a certain woman pretty, chances are there will be another man who will find this certain woman attractive. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Usige]

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.

Thanks for the clarification.

Sorry if I get a bit prickly every time I see some economic/educational bar set as a prerequisite for a serious relationship. I was talking to my nephew who is starting pharmacy school. He has been dating his girlfriend for 3.5 years and living together for a year. He mentioned they were planning to get married… after he finishes his doctorate and she finishes her Masters in Nursing. The reason they are waiting 4 more year? “Because you have to finish school and have a job before you get married.” Guess those aren’t prereqs for playing house though. :nope:

My wife only has 1 semester of college and based on social security earnings she has earned less income in her life than I paid in taxes last year. We got married and pregnant with the 1st of seven children about a month after she started college. Never once did I consider her as marrying me for my money (especially since I had none at 18 when we started dating or at 21 when we married )

 

[Xantippe]

Thanks for the clarification.

Sorry if I get a bit prickly every time I see some economic/educational bar set as a prerequisite for a serious relationship. I was talking to my nephew who is starting pharmacy school. He has been dating his girlfriend for 3.5 years and living together for a year. He mentioned they were planning to get married… after he finishes his doctorate and she finishes her Masters in Nursing. The reason they are waiting 4 more year? “Because you have to finish school and have a job before you get married.” Guess those aren’t prereqs for playing house though. :nope:

My wife only has 1 semester of college and based on social security earnings she has earned less income in her life than I paid in taxes last year. We got married and pregnant with the 1st of seven children about a month after she started college. Never once did I consider her as marrying me for my money (especially since I had none at 18 when we started dating or at 21 when we married )

DCM writes especially for older Catholic single ladies, so when encouraging vocational stuff, she’s probably also thinking of the fact that not every nice Catholic girl gets carried off to the altar at 22 (although lots of us do). It’s rather different dating at 30 or 35 rather than 18 or 22. It starts being more of a question–what have you been doing with your life aside from waiting to get married? Plus, it’s important to keep busy and be productive, just for one’s own sake.

(DCM herself had a divorce and annulment in her mid/later 20s, was single but actively looking for quite a number of years, and married a blog reader at 38. She’s a mid-40-something now.)

 

[Usige]

DCM writes especially for older Catholic single ladies, so when encouraging vocational stuff, she’s probably also thinking of the fact that not every nice Catholic girl gets carried off to the altar at 22 (although lots of us do). It’s rather different dating at 30 or 35 rather than 18 or 22. It starts being more of a question–what have you been doing with your life aside from waiting to get married? Plus, it’s important to keep busy and be productive, just for one’s own sake.

Fair enough. Just goes to show that context is everything.

 

[Xantippe]

She also encourages careers that have an obvious carry-over to homemaking:

“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.”

I’d add: figure out your finances (maybe take a personal finance class) and be making progress toward goals. Pay off student loans, have retirement income ticking along, have an emergency fund, save a house downpayment, etc. Don’t think that you’ll do it later. It’s never going to be easier than right now. Later you’ll have 3+ kids that have regular ER bills, need a minivan and all eat as much as you do.