"With online dating such a huge phenomenon at the moment, users could benefit from understanding how something as simple as a well-chosen screen name could significantly increase their chance of finding a partner."
(Monica Whitty, Ph.D., quoted in TimesOnline)
Monica Whitty, a lecturer in cyber-psychology at Nottingham Trent University, has written extensively on issues related to online dating and is a consultant to e-harmony. She recently presented a paper at the annual conference of the British Psychological Society on a subject that deserves greater attention than it usually gets: the "screen names" people use to accompany their online profiles.
For privacy purposes, virtually every online dating site requires members to choose a screen name, i.e., a name that does not explicitly identify the member. Normally, the sites allow members to use just about any screen name they want, as long as it is unique, non-identifiable, and not obscene (although it's amazing what sometimes gets by the censors). For a lot of people, the screeen name is nothing more than an afterthought, which is why there are so many that sound alike (if you see susan5043, it probably means that susan1 through susan5042 have already been taken).
Dr. Whitty's research suggests that online daters, both male and female, should give more careful attention to choosing the right screen name. She found that many people won't bother reading a profile if the screen name is boring, weird, or offensive. What's boring? Well, anything of the susan5043 variety is boring, as is justme, citygirl, and goodguy4u. What's weird? I suppose the answer is anything the writer thinks is clever but which causes the typical reader to say, "Huh?". Some examples might be silly nicknames or "in" jokes (bubbleanniekins, willibilli, cerealgirl); references to obscure or off-putting interests (dungiedraggieguy, hulahoopgal); or names that are nonsensical (superbamcamman, zzyzlehead).
What's offensive? Surprisingly, according to Dr. Whitty, references to wealth were considered far more offensive than references to sex. Luvmyporsche, bimmerboy, wealthynwise, bigbuxbob, and the like were almost universally ridiculed by people in the study, including women who had admitted they're often attracted to affluent men. According to Dr. Whitty, "...showing off about one's wealth from the outset might reflect a superficial personality, egotism, embellishment, or out-and-out deceit".
I would add a few other no-no categories: names that say you're sad and lonely (aloneagain, rulonely2?); names that bring up failed relationships (stillhurtin, divorceddad); and, for women, names that imply that you define yourself solely as a mother (samsmom, soccermominohio).
What kinds of names did the study participants actually like? The favorites, for both men and women, were names that were playful or flirtacious but not raunchy. Fun2bewith, luv2bekissed, sweetmaggiemae, happyhank, built4comfort, and breakfastinbed4u were examples of screen names that made people want to read the profile.
Of course, a poorly-written profile can negate the positive impression of a good screen name, as can a profile that does nothing to reinforce the promise implied in the name. So if you're fun2bewith, your profile should say what makes you a fun person, or what the fun things are that you like to do. You should also look hard at the picture you post of yourself, to be sure that it doesn't send a contradictory message.
And messages are what online dating profiles are all about. You want your message to be consistent and positive, and to express the qualities that will draw the right kinds of people to you. It all starts with the name, but, unfortunately, it can end there, too.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Creating Your Own Luck
"Over the long term, you both change. You discover the things you don't like about each other and, if you're unlucky, you forget the things you did like. How do you possibly get through all that?"
(Author Salman Rushdie, interviewed in British Elle about his four marriages and four divorces)
Salman Rushdie is one of the world's great writers; I expect he'll win the Nobel Prize in Literature someday. But when it comes to marriage, he's apparently as clueless as the average Joe.
What struck me about the above quote was the word "unlucky". By definition, luck, or the absence of it, is something that's out of our control. Luck is finding a twenty dollar bill on the sidewalk, or getting upgraded to first class for no apparent reason. Bad luck is being laid off from your job, or having a tree crash down on your car in a windstorm. There's no question that both good luck and bad luck can affect our health, wealth, and happiness in any number of ways. But when a marriage fails, it's usually not due to something as random or unforeseeable as luck. It's due to attitudes that were formed, decisions that were made, and behaviors that were deliberately engaged in.
Rushdie is certainly correct that people do change over the course of time and people do find out that the other person isn't perfect. But I think he's wrong to conclude that there's nothing we can do about it, other than to accept the inevitability of divorce. We can't stop our spouse from evolving as a human being---and we shouldn't want to---but we can make a conscious effort to understand and appreciate the changes that are taking place in him (and we can try to recognize that we've changed, too, and not always for the better).
We can't pretend that we weren't disappointed when our illusions were shattered, but we can recognize that we created those illusions by seeing only what we wanted to see. And while in times of stress it's easy to forget why we were attracted to someone in the first place, we still have the power to remember the good qualities and the good times.
Readers of my book know that I don't believe every marriage can or should be saved. I don't know how people tolerate physical or emotional abuse for ten minutes, much less twenty or thirty years. But I do believe that there are far too many unnecessary divorces: divorces that were caused not by wrongdoing or genuine incompatibility but by lack of effort.
In marriage, we can't just drift along and wait for our luck to change. We have to create our own luck. We can do it by training ourselves to see the other person through fresh eyes and with a sympathetic heart. We can also do it by anticipating changes and dealing with them in a positive way: accepting the ones that are inevitable, celebrating the ones that are good, and recognizing that every change is an opportunity for insight and discovery.
(Author Salman Rushdie, interviewed in British Elle about his four marriages and four divorces)
Salman Rushdie is one of the world's great writers; I expect he'll win the Nobel Prize in Literature someday. But when it comes to marriage, he's apparently as clueless as the average Joe.
What struck me about the above quote was the word "unlucky". By definition, luck, or the absence of it, is something that's out of our control. Luck is finding a twenty dollar bill on the sidewalk, or getting upgraded to first class for no apparent reason. Bad luck is being laid off from your job, or having a tree crash down on your car in a windstorm. There's no question that both good luck and bad luck can affect our health, wealth, and happiness in any number of ways. But when a marriage fails, it's usually not due to something as random or unforeseeable as luck. It's due to attitudes that were formed, decisions that were made, and behaviors that were deliberately engaged in.
Rushdie is certainly correct that people do change over the course of time and people do find out that the other person isn't perfect. But I think he's wrong to conclude that there's nothing we can do about it, other than to accept the inevitability of divorce. We can't stop our spouse from evolving as a human being---and we shouldn't want to---but we can make a conscious effort to understand and appreciate the changes that are taking place in him (and we can try to recognize that we've changed, too, and not always for the better).
We can't pretend that we weren't disappointed when our illusions were shattered, but we can recognize that we created those illusions by seeing only what we wanted to see. And while in times of stress it's easy to forget why we were attracted to someone in the first place, we still have the power to remember the good qualities and the good times.
Readers of my book know that I don't believe every marriage can or should be saved. I don't know how people tolerate physical or emotional abuse for ten minutes, much less twenty or thirty years. But I do believe that there are far too many unnecessary divorces: divorces that were caused not by wrongdoing or genuine incompatibility but by lack of effort.
In marriage, we can't just drift along and wait for our luck to change. We have to create our own luck. We can do it by training ourselves to see the other person through fresh eyes and with a sympathetic heart. We can also do it by anticipating changes and dealing with them in a positive way: accepting the ones that are inevitable, celebrating the ones that are good, and recognizing that every change is an opportunity for insight and discovery.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Cruise Ship Romance as a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
"Of the survey respondents, 49% insisted that it is totally possible to find romance at sea (and many of them have), but the other 51% said it never happens".
(cruisecritic.com survey)
I love cruising. My wife and I have been on four cruises, and we just put down a deposit on a fifth one. On every cruise we've been on, we've seen plenty of unattached people of all ages meeting and mingling at the cocktail lounges, dance spots, pools, restaurants, coffee bars, and everywhere else that passengers---married or single---tend to gravitate to if they're in a socializing mood.
Knowing what I know about cruise ships---but also knowing what I know about human nature---I'm not surprised that the survey of single cruisers I quoted from produced such radically different results. My guess is that the people who said it's easy to meet people onboard, would be the kind of people who say that it's easy to meet people at ball games or at church events or at Starbucks or at work. And, conversely, the people who said that it's impossible to meet anyone on a cruise, probably also say that it's impossible to meet people anywhere.
When people in the latter group are on a cruise ship, they may as well be carrying signs that say, "Do Not Disturb". They're either in a corner of the library all day with their nose in a book, or they're ordering room service if they haven't made a dinner date in advance, or they're doing endless laps on the jogging track but never making eye contact with anyone. And if they do go out to the bars or restaurants, they unfailingly wind up at familiar same-sex domains: either tables of ten or twelve women (in which case the sign now reads, "No Men Allowed"), or the sports bar/cigar lounge.
The people who say that romance is possible to find, or even easy to find, aren't waiting for lightning to strike. They smile at people, they start up conversations in the gym, they aren't afraid to sit up at the bar by themselves. They project an air of confidence and approachability. They never seem embarrassed to be single. But at the same time, they don't seem desperate to meet someone, and, indeed, they're not desperate. They're there to have a great time, and that's precisely what they're doing.
There are times, of course, when even the most outgoing, optimistic cruiser is not going to meet anyone. If you don't do your homework on cruise line demographics, you may find yourself thirty years older or thirty years younger than the rest of the passengers. And a ship that's too small may not have a critical mass of singles, regardless of the demographics. But, in general, people usually find what they expect to find. Self-fulfilling prophecies are common in all areas of life, not just in dating. But because dating, particularly mid-life dating, brings up so many emotions, so many hopes and fears, it's crucial that the prophecies be positive ones.
(cruisecritic.com survey)
I love cruising. My wife and I have been on four cruises, and we just put down a deposit on a fifth one. On every cruise we've been on, we've seen plenty of unattached people of all ages meeting and mingling at the cocktail lounges, dance spots, pools, restaurants, coffee bars, and everywhere else that passengers---married or single---tend to gravitate to if they're in a socializing mood.
Knowing what I know about cruise ships---but also knowing what I know about human nature---I'm not surprised that the survey of single cruisers I quoted from produced such radically different results. My guess is that the people who said it's easy to meet people onboard, would be the kind of people who say that it's easy to meet people at ball games or at church events or at Starbucks or at work. And, conversely, the people who said that it's impossible to meet anyone on a cruise, probably also say that it's impossible to meet people anywhere.
When people in the latter group are on a cruise ship, they may as well be carrying signs that say, "Do Not Disturb". They're either in a corner of the library all day with their nose in a book, or they're ordering room service if they haven't made a dinner date in advance, or they're doing endless laps on the jogging track but never making eye contact with anyone. And if they do go out to the bars or restaurants, they unfailingly wind up at familiar same-sex domains: either tables of ten or twelve women (in which case the sign now reads, "No Men Allowed"), or the sports bar/cigar lounge.
The people who say that romance is possible to find, or even easy to find, aren't waiting for lightning to strike. They smile at people, they start up conversations in the gym, they aren't afraid to sit up at the bar by themselves. They project an air of confidence and approachability. They never seem embarrassed to be single. But at the same time, they don't seem desperate to meet someone, and, indeed, they're not desperate. They're there to have a great time, and that's precisely what they're doing.
There are times, of course, when even the most outgoing, optimistic cruiser is not going to meet anyone. If you don't do your homework on cruise line demographics, you may find yourself thirty years older or thirty years younger than the rest of the passengers. And a ship that's too small may not have a critical mass of singles, regardless of the demographics. But, in general, people usually find what they expect to find. Self-fulfilling prophecies are common in all areas of life, not just in dating. But because dating, particularly mid-life dating, brings up so many emotions, so many hopes and fears, it's crucial that the prophecies be positive ones.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
A Kinder, Gentler Approach to Divorce
"Robin Williams and Wife to Seek Collaborative Divorce"
(Headline in Variety)
For better or worse, it usually takes a celebrity to get the general public to notice a particular issue or phenomenon. In the case of collaborative divorce, which has been around in some form for nearly twenty years, the ongoing Robin Williams divorce proceedings have transported the movement from the relative obscurity of law journals into the world of the tabloids. I think it will turn out to be a positive development.
Collaborative divorce is based on the premise that the litigation-based model is often counter-productive in divorce cases, especially cases involving children. Divorcing couples can spend tens of thousands of dollars---even hundreds of thousands of dollars---litigating issues that could have, and should have, been resolved with far less monetary and emotional cost. In addition to messed-up kids and damaged parent-child relationships, the residue of litigated divorce is usually bitterness and frustration. People out for blood never learn until the case is over that the courts can't give them blood.
In a collaborative divorce, the parties and their attorneys agree in writing at the outset of the case to freely disclose all pertinent financial information and other relevant facts; to jointly retain neutral experts (such as child psychologists) rather than "hired guns"; to conduct four-way settlement conferences in a civil and co-operative manner; and to refrain from litigating the case in court until or unless the collaborative process has totally broken down (at which point the original lawyers would withdraw, new attorneys would come in, and everyone would start from scratch).
Not every divorce lawyer is trained in collaborative techniques, and, indeed, some lawyers are opposed to the idea. A veteran litigation attorney may feel that litigation---with its relentless "discovery", its dueling experts, and its hard-hitting cross-examination---is necessary to get at the truth and produce a just result. I understand the thinking, but I don't buy it, at least not across the board. There's a proper place for both approaches. Even the most enthusiastic collaborative divorce lawyers recognize that some cases are unsuitable for the process, and probably need to be litigated. I'm talking about cases in which one person has habitually lied to or abused his spouse, concealed assets, engaged in mind games and power plays, tried to turn the kids against the other parent, or has otherwise acted in bad faith on a consistent basis.
But in cases in which the parties have at least some measure of goodwill towards each other and are genuinely concerned that the kids not be dragged into a lifelong psychodrama, collaborative divorce can be a realistic option.
Because I've discussed mediation in several previous blog articles, I should point out that there are similarities between mediation and collaborative divorce (mainly, an emphasis on resolving problems in a rational manner), but the two processes are not the same. A mediator is a neutral person; he or she can't offer legal advice or strategies to either spouse, and can't normally be a "hand-holder" for one spouse and not the other. A collaborative lawyer, despite the agreement not to litigate, is still a lawyer in every sense, with an ethical obligation to represent his or her client competently, to honor the attorney-client privelege, and all the rest. A client seeking a collaborative divorce needn't fear that it will be in any way a second-rate divorce.
If I were to get back into divorce work, I'd probably limit my practice to collaborative cases. Because the litigation model was the only model available when I started practicing in 1979, I learned it and I learned to accept its limitations. But I often thought that there must be a better way. Well, there is, and if you're seriously considering divorce you should seriously consider the benefits of collaboration.
(I want to thank Atty. Natalie Wright of Tucson, Arizona for helping to educate me about collaborative divorce. However, all opinions, examples, and recommendations expressed herein are my own).
(Headline in Variety)
For better or worse, it usually takes a celebrity to get the general public to notice a particular issue or phenomenon. In the case of collaborative divorce, which has been around in some form for nearly twenty years, the ongoing Robin Williams divorce proceedings have transported the movement from the relative obscurity of law journals into the world of the tabloids. I think it will turn out to be a positive development.
Collaborative divorce is based on the premise that the litigation-based model is often counter-productive in divorce cases, especially cases involving children. Divorcing couples can spend tens of thousands of dollars---even hundreds of thousands of dollars---litigating issues that could have, and should have, been resolved with far less monetary and emotional cost. In addition to messed-up kids and damaged parent-child relationships, the residue of litigated divorce is usually bitterness and frustration. People out for blood never learn until the case is over that the courts can't give them blood.
In a collaborative divorce, the parties and their attorneys agree in writing at the outset of the case to freely disclose all pertinent financial information and other relevant facts; to jointly retain neutral experts (such as child psychologists) rather than "hired guns"; to conduct four-way settlement conferences in a civil and co-operative manner; and to refrain from litigating the case in court until or unless the collaborative process has totally broken down (at which point the original lawyers would withdraw, new attorneys would come in, and everyone would start from scratch).
Not every divorce lawyer is trained in collaborative techniques, and, indeed, some lawyers are opposed to the idea. A veteran litigation attorney may feel that litigation---with its relentless "discovery", its dueling experts, and its hard-hitting cross-examination---is necessary to get at the truth and produce a just result. I understand the thinking, but I don't buy it, at least not across the board. There's a proper place for both approaches. Even the most enthusiastic collaborative divorce lawyers recognize that some cases are unsuitable for the process, and probably need to be litigated. I'm talking about cases in which one person has habitually lied to or abused his spouse, concealed assets, engaged in mind games and power plays, tried to turn the kids against the other parent, or has otherwise acted in bad faith on a consistent basis.
But in cases in which the parties have at least some measure of goodwill towards each other and are genuinely concerned that the kids not be dragged into a lifelong psychodrama, collaborative divorce can be a realistic option.
Because I've discussed mediation in several previous blog articles, I should point out that there are similarities between mediation and collaborative divorce (mainly, an emphasis on resolving problems in a rational manner), but the two processes are not the same. A mediator is a neutral person; he or she can't offer legal advice or strategies to either spouse, and can't normally be a "hand-holder" for one spouse and not the other. A collaborative lawyer, despite the agreement not to litigate, is still a lawyer in every sense, with an ethical obligation to represent his or her client competently, to honor the attorney-client privelege, and all the rest. A client seeking a collaborative divorce needn't fear that it will be in any way a second-rate divorce.
If I were to get back into divorce work, I'd probably limit my practice to collaborative cases. Because the litigation model was the only model available when I started practicing in 1979, I learned it and I learned to accept its limitations. But I often thought that there must be a better way. Well, there is, and if you're seriously considering divorce you should seriously consider the benefits of collaboration.
(I want to thank Atty. Natalie Wright of Tucson, Arizona for helping to educate me about collaborative divorce. However, all opinions, examples, and recommendations expressed herein are my own).
Friday, June 20, 2008
Third Time a Charm? Maybe Not!
"The divorce rate in America is 41 percent for a first marriage, 60 percent for a second marriage, and 73 percent for a third marriage".
(From an article in Enrichment Journal)
The often-cited statistic that fifty percent of marriages end in divorce is somewhat misleading. It's actually lower than fifty percent for first marriages, and considerably higher for every marriage after that.
In a way, these percentages remind me of bar exam pass rates. A particular state may have, on average, an overall pass rate of 80 percent, but on closer analysis the pass rate might be 90 percent for first-time takers (i.e., people who have just graduated from law school), 75 percent for second-time takers, 60 percent for third-time takers, and as low as 5 percent for the relatively few people who have previously failed it ten times or more.
Although getting married a second or third time is obviously different from taking a bar exam multiple times, there are at least two common elements that might explain the rising failure rates: inadequate preparation and psychological pressures. Most people taking the bar exam for the first time devote several months of their lives to studying for it, on essentially a full-time basis, often beginning even prior to law school graduation. A person who fails the exam the first time not only has to figure out what he did wrong, but also has to find the time to keep studying. Because the bar exam is given only twice a year, the typical second or third-time taker has to get some kind of job to support himself until he passes, which usually means less time to study. In addition, once a person has failed, he starts losing confidence in himself. A vicious cycle is created, with future failures an ever-more-likely result.
I think something similar happens after divorce. Not every divorced person gets remarried, but a large percentage of those who do will settle for the first person who comes into their life afterward. This is particularly true of men---men often being notoriously incapable of living on their own---but it happens with women, too.
At a book-signing event just last night, I spoke with a woman who has been married four times. From what she told me about her current marriage, it seems only a matter of time before she will have been divorced four times, as well. Although she was good-looking, in-shape, articulate, intelligent, and fun, I detected a certain lack of confidence in her. Because marriage itself is seemingly part of her comfort zone, she has probably rushed into new marriages without having taken the time to figure out what went wrong the last time. She has probably chosen husbands not so much because they're desirable, but because they're simply available.
My guess is that she'll be married a fifth time someday, but I sincerely hope that she'll be choosier next time. To do that, though, she'll have to look hard inside herself and decide once and for all what she wants out of marriage and out of life. Because she's only about 45, she should have plenty of time to enjoy the kind of life that she deserves, what I call in my book an "authentic" life.
Statistics, of course, can't predict what will actually happen in any individual case. The person who takes the bar exam for the fifteenth time may pass it with flying colors. The person who gets married a seventh time may find her true love and live happily ever after. But although long odds don't rule out a win, they should give you pause before you place a bet. A divorce rate of 73 percent or higher calls out for caution, reflection, and a high degree of self-awareness.
(From an article in Enrichment Journal)
The often-cited statistic that fifty percent of marriages end in divorce is somewhat misleading. It's actually lower than fifty percent for first marriages, and considerably higher for every marriage after that.
In a way, these percentages remind me of bar exam pass rates. A particular state may have, on average, an overall pass rate of 80 percent, but on closer analysis the pass rate might be 90 percent for first-time takers (i.e., people who have just graduated from law school), 75 percent for second-time takers, 60 percent for third-time takers, and as low as 5 percent for the relatively few people who have previously failed it ten times or more.
Although getting married a second or third time is obviously different from taking a bar exam multiple times, there are at least two common elements that might explain the rising failure rates: inadequate preparation and psychological pressures. Most people taking the bar exam for the first time devote several months of their lives to studying for it, on essentially a full-time basis, often beginning even prior to law school graduation. A person who fails the exam the first time not only has to figure out what he did wrong, but also has to find the time to keep studying. Because the bar exam is given only twice a year, the typical second or third-time taker has to get some kind of job to support himself until he passes, which usually means less time to study. In addition, once a person has failed, he starts losing confidence in himself. A vicious cycle is created, with future failures an ever-more-likely result.
I think something similar happens after divorce. Not every divorced person gets remarried, but a large percentage of those who do will settle for the first person who comes into their life afterward. This is particularly true of men---men often being notoriously incapable of living on their own---but it happens with women, too.
At a book-signing event just last night, I spoke with a woman who has been married four times. From what she told me about her current marriage, it seems only a matter of time before she will have been divorced four times, as well. Although she was good-looking, in-shape, articulate, intelligent, and fun, I detected a certain lack of confidence in her. Because marriage itself is seemingly part of her comfort zone, she has probably rushed into new marriages without having taken the time to figure out what went wrong the last time. She has probably chosen husbands not so much because they're desirable, but because they're simply available.
My guess is that she'll be married a fifth time someday, but I sincerely hope that she'll be choosier next time. To do that, though, she'll have to look hard inside herself and decide once and for all what she wants out of marriage and out of life. Because she's only about 45, she should have plenty of time to enjoy the kind of life that she deserves, what I call in my book an "authentic" life.
Statistics, of course, can't predict what will actually happen in any individual case. The person who takes the bar exam for the fifteenth time may pass it with flying colors. The person who gets married a seventh time may find her true love and live happily ever after. But although long odds don't rule out a win, they should give you pause before you place a bet. A divorce rate of 73 percent or higher calls out for caution, reflection, and a high degree of self-awareness.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Gay Divorce? Good Luck!
"The [Massachusetts gay marriage] statute does not confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon the Family Court of Rhode Island."
(Chambers v. Ormiston, 935 A.2d 956, 963 (R.I., 2007))
Gay marriage has, of course, been very much in the news for some time now. Inevitably, gay divorce issues are now arising, not just in Massachusetts (still the only state to permit gay marriages) but also in many states that explicitly prohibit gay marriages.
Thousands of gay couples have gotten married in Massachusetts over the past few years. Many of those who were not originally Massachusetts residents returned to their home states after the wedding ceremony. If California winds up permitting gay marriages (which it will shortly, unless a November referendum overturns the court decision legalizing them), many thousands more gay couples will marry there but will make their homes elsewhere. Unfortunately for them, if things go wrong in their marriages they're probably not going to be allowed to get divorced anytime soon in their home states.
A heterosexual person can normally file for divorce in any state in which he or she lives, regardless of where the marriage ceremony took place. A couple could, for example, get married in Minnesota, move to Arizona, and then split up, with the wife remaining in Arizona and the husband moving to California. At that point, the wife could file for divorce in Arizona or the husband could file in California. Neither party would have to return to Minnesota to file for divorce.
According to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, however, unless that state passes a gay marriage statute, its courts cannot grant divorces to gay residents who were married in Massachusetts or any other state permitting gay marriages. The case I quoted from involves a lesbian couple who had gotten married in Massachusetts, but then immediately returned to Rhode Island. Although they could have gotten a divorce in Rhode Island if they were a heterosexual couple, one or the other of them will have to establish residency in Massachusetts (or, maybe in the future, California) if a divorce is ever going to be granted. Massachusetts has a one-year residency requirement for filing for divorce (one of the longest in the nation), so a potential divorce litigant would have to severely disrupt his or her life for an extended time just to meet the minimum filing requirements.
Chances are, other states will follow the Rhode Island Supreme Court's reasoning if and when similar cases reach their highest courts. The United States Supreme Court will eventually get into the act, because Federal constitutional issues such as "equal protection" and "full faith and credit" will have to be addressed. But that could take years, and until then gay marriage partners will have to deal with a crazy-quilt of conflicting and confusing state laws. And I'm not even talking about "civil union" partners in places like Vermont, who have some, but not necessarily all, of the benefits of marriage (but, arguably, only in Vermont).
Interestingly enough, the same states that deny gays the right to get married or divorced can and do enforce custody, child support, and alimony orders issued in gay marriage or civil union cases by the Massachusetts or Vermont courts. Under the terms of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction & Enforcement Act, the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, and similar laws, court orders issued by a different state cannot be ignored simply because they arose out of a civil union or gay marriage.
The moral of all this? Gay couples need to be aware that gay marriage does not automatically equal gay equality in family law matters. But perhaps the commitment and courage required to live openly as a gay married couple might mean that divorce is a less likely outcome than it is with heterosexual couples. If that's true, it would be good news not just for for gay couples but for the rest of us as well. The last thing this society needs is a higher divorce rate.
(Chambers v. Ormiston, 935 A.2d 956, 963 (R.I., 2007))
Gay marriage has, of course, been very much in the news for some time now. Inevitably, gay divorce issues are now arising, not just in Massachusetts (still the only state to permit gay marriages) but also in many states that explicitly prohibit gay marriages.
Thousands of gay couples have gotten married in Massachusetts over the past few years. Many of those who were not originally Massachusetts residents returned to their home states after the wedding ceremony. If California winds up permitting gay marriages (which it will shortly, unless a November referendum overturns the court decision legalizing them), many thousands more gay couples will marry there but will make their homes elsewhere. Unfortunately for them, if things go wrong in their marriages they're probably not going to be allowed to get divorced anytime soon in their home states.
A heterosexual person can normally file for divorce in any state in which he or she lives, regardless of where the marriage ceremony took place. A couple could, for example, get married in Minnesota, move to Arizona, and then split up, with the wife remaining in Arizona and the husband moving to California. At that point, the wife could file for divorce in Arizona or the husband could file in California. Neither party would have to return to Minnesota to file for divorce.
According to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, however, unless that state passes a gay marriage statute, its courts cannot grant divorces to gay residents who were married in Massachusetts or any other state permitting gay marriages. The case I quoted from involves a lesbian couple who had gotten married in Massachusetts, but then immediately returned to Rhode Island. Although they could have gotten a divorce in Rhode Island if they were a heterosexual couple, one or the other of them will have to establish residency in Massachusetts (or, maybe in the future, California) if a divorce is ever going to be granted. Massachusetts has a one-year residency requirement for filing for divorce (one of the longest in the nation), so a potential divorce litigant would have to severely disrupt his or her life for an extended time just to meet the minimum filing requirements.
Chances are, other states will follow the Rhode Island Supreme Court's reasoning if and when similar cases reach their highest courts. The United States Supreme Court will eventually get into the act, because Federal constitutional issues such as "equal protection" and "full faith and credit" will have to be addressed. But that could take years, and until then gay marriage partners will have to deal with a crazy-quilt of conflicting and confusing state laws. And I'm not even talking about "civil union" partners in places like Vermont, who have some, but not necessarily all, of the benefits of marriage (but, arguably, only in Vermont).
Interestingly enough, the same states that deny gays the right to get married or divorced can and do enforce custody, child support, and alimony orders issued in gay marriage or civil union cases by the Massachusetts or Vermont courts. Under the terms of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction & Enforcement Act, the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, and similar laws, court orders issued by a different state cannot be ignored simply because they arose out of a civil union or gay marriage.
The moral of all this? Gay couples need to be aware that gay marriage does not automatically equal gay equality in family law matters. But perhaps the commitment and courage required to live openly as a gay married couple might mean that divorce is a less likely outcome than it is with heterosexual couples. If that's true, it would be good news not just for for gay couples but for the rest of us as well. The last thing this society needs is a higher divorce rate.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Let Mom Do It Herself
"We are looking for a nice gentleman for our mother. She is 55, slim, good-looking, and full of life and energy.........."
(From a "Women Seeking Men" posting on craigslist.org)
Because I write and lecture about post-divorce dating, I read a lot of personal ads. Many of them are bad, which in a way is good for me because the bad ones give me material to write about. In my book, I discuss various kinds of bad ads, such as ads that deliberately mislead, ads that say too little, ads that say too much, ads that are poorly written, and ads that are little more than wish-lists to Santa.
I also talk about ads that send unintended negative messages, an example of which is an ad that's written by a friend or relative, not by the person herself. (I say "herself" because in almost every example I've seen, the person in question is a woman, as are the friends and relatives).
I hate to criticize people who mean well and want the best for their mother, their best friend, or whoever, but people should write their own ads. If I were a single guy reading an ad placed by someone's daughters, my first thought would be why the mother didn't place it herself. Is she less than enthusiastic about the whole online dating idea? Does she even know what the daughters are doing on her behalf?
I might also wonder if she's capable of writing an ad. Is she like a modern-day version of the tongue-tied soldier in "Cyrano de Bergerac" who relies on the great Cyrano to put his thoughts into words? Or maybe she's computer-illiterate, which is no crime but is a distinct disadvantage if one is going to be carrying on e-mail correspondences or navigating a dating site.
And I'd also wonder who is actually going to receive my response: the daughters or the mother? Will the daughters be screening and evaluating the responses, before deciding which ones to forward to Mom? And then what? Will the daughters be looking over Mom's shoulder to make sure she follows up in a timely fashion? Unless Mom sounds like a one-in-a-million lady, the whole thing is way too much trouble.
Of all the prerequisites to writing a good personal ad, motivation is the most basic. If a person isn't sufficiently motivated to do it herself, you're not helping her by doing the work. In fact, by unwittingly turning off or scaring off most potential responders, you're ensuring that the project will fail. Your mother or friend may mistakenly think that it was her age or the qualities listed in the ad that were the turn-offs, when in reality the only turn-off was that the ad was written by someone else. She may become so discouraged that she never tests the online system again, which is hardly what anyone intended.
One corollary to the "do it yourself" rule is what I call the "describe yourself in your own words" rule. There must be a million personal ads out there that say, "My friends say I'm pretty" (or funny, or sexy, or whatever). People who write things like that are trying not to sound boastful or obnoxious, but unfortunately the message that's conveyed is that she doesn't truly believe what she's saying. She's saying, in effect, "I wouldn't necessarily call myself pretty, but I've heard my friends describe me as pretty, so maybe I am". This is not a positive message. Yes, it's possible to go overboard in one's self-description, but generally speaking a personal ad is not the place for undue modesty (as long as you're not deliberately distorting the truth).
As a young and brash Muhammad Ali once said to someone who accused him of excessive boasting: "It ain't braggin' if it's true". He was right. So, if it's true, say it as if you really believe it, and in your own words.
(From a "Women Seeking Men" posting on craigslist.org)
Because I write and lecture about post-divorce dating, I read a lot of personal ads. Many of them are bad, which in a way is good for me because the bad ones give me material to write about. In my book, I discuss various kinds of bad ads, such as ads that deliberately mislead, ads that say too little, ads that say too much, ads that are poorly written, and ads that are little more than wish-lists to Santa.
I also talk about ads that send unintended negative messages, an example of which is an ad that's written by a friend or relative, not by the person herself. (I say "herself" because in almost every example I've seen, the person in question is a woman, as are the friends and relatives).
I hate to criticize people who mean well and want the best for their mother, their best friend, or whoever, but people should write their own ads. If I were a single guy reading an ad placed by someone's daughters, my first thought would be why the mother didn't place it herself. Is she less than enthusiastic about the whole online dating idea? Does she even know what the daughters are doing on her behalf?
I might also wonder if she's capable of writing an ad. Is she like a modern-day version of the tongue-tied soldier in "Cyrano de Bergerac" who relies on the great Cyrano to put his thoughts into words? Or maybe she's computer-illiterate, which is no crime but is a distinct disadvantage if one is going to be carrying on e-mail correspondences or navigating a dating site.
And I'd also wonder who is actually going to receive my response: the daughters or the mother? Will the daughters be screening and evaluating the responses, before deciding which ones to forward to Mom? And then what? Will the daughters be looking over Mom's shoulder to make sure she follows up in a timely fashion? Unless Mom sounds like a one-in-a-million lady, the whole thing is way too much trouble.
Of all the prerequisites to writing a good personal ad, motivation is the most basic. If a person isn't sufficiently motivated to do it herself, you're not helping her by doing the work. In fact, by unwittingly turning off or scaring off most potential responders, you're ensuring that the project will fail. Your mother or friend may mistakenly think that it was her age or the qualities listed in the ad that were the turn-offs, when in reality the only turn-off was that the ad was written by someone else. She may become so discouraged that she never tests the online system again, which is hardly what anyone intended.
One corollary to the "do it yourself" rule is what I call the "describe yourself in your own words" rule. There must be a million personal ads out there that say, "My friends say I'm pretty" (or funny, or sexy, or whatever). People who write things like that are trying not to sound boastful or obnoxious, but unfortunately the message that's conveyed is that she doesn't truly believe what she's saying. She's saying, in effect, "I wouldn't necessarily call myself pretty, but I've heard my friends describe me as pretty, so maybe I am". This is not a positive message. Yes, it's possible to go overboard in one's self-description, but generally speaking a personal ad is not the place for undue modesty (as long as you're not deliberately distorting the truth).
As a young and brash Muhammad Ali once said to someone who accused him of excessive boasting: "It ain't braggin' if it's true". He was right. So, if it's true, say it as if you really believe it, and in your own words.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
