Jim Duzak's Quote & Comment

Should Being a Jerk Disqualify You from Being President?

2011-05-12T10:53:00.000-07:00

"Jackie wasn't pretty enough to be a President's wife."
Newt Gingrich, in conversation, referring to his first wife (as recounted by two former aides)

As expected, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich announced today that he's a candidate for the 2012 Republican Party nomination for President. This is not a political blog, so I'll refrain from making any comments on Gingrich's policy positions or his career as a legislator, other than to acknowledge that he's had some substantial accomplishments over the years. But because I write about men-women relationships, I do have a couple of things to say about the guy.

Even by Washington standards, his marital history---in particular, his treatment of his first wife, Jackie Battley---leaves something to be desired. I'm not talking about the fact that he married her when he was a nobody, and divorced her (to marry a woman he was having an affair with) once his career started hitting stride. I'm talking about the way he did it, the way he lied about it afterward, and the way he ridiculed her for things beyond her control.

Gingrich had Jackie served with divorce papers while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery. When that got in the newspapers, Gingrich blamed it on the process servers, indignantly proclaiming that he would never have been so insensitive to have it done that way. Well, how did the process servers know she was in the hospital, and what room she was in?

And then to add insult to injury, Gingrich would joke about Jackie afterward. Seven years older than him, and by no means a "public" person (she was formerly a high school geometry teacher), Jackie apparently didn't fit Gingrich's notion of what a political wife should look and sound like. She wasn't pretty enough, he told aides, and her shyness embarrassed him at political events. Clearly, she was a liability, and had to be disposed of.

His marriage to wife number two, Marianne Ginther, was also characterized by his infidelities. He divorced Marianne to marry one of his affair partners, Callista Bisek, his congressional aide and twenty-three years his junior. Interestingly enough, while carrying on his affair with Ms. Bisek, Gingrich was in the forefront of the movement to impeach Bill Clinton over matters related to his affair with a much-younger aide.

The question I raise is simply this: Should being a jerk, and a liar, and a hypocrite, disqualify a person from the Presidency? I can't answer that question for you or anyone else, but I know what my answer is.

Lying about Your "Secret" Trysts? Your Cell Phone Can Expose You!

2011-05-06T11:02:00.000-07:00

"Apple Inc.'s iPhone is collecting and storing location information even when location services are turned off."
From an article in the April 25, 2011 Wall Street Journal

I'm not exactly a cutting-edge technology guy, but I've always been fascinated by the interrelationship between technology and extramarital affairs. E-mails, cell phones, instant messaging and texts all make it easier to carry on an affair, but they also make it easier for affairs to be exposed. Just about everything a person does on his computer or cell phone is stored away somewhere, waiting to be uncoded and---perhaps---used as evidence against him in a divorce case.

Even things we don't usually think of as personal electronic devices can expose us. A while back, I wrote about the use of "EZ Pass" data in divorce cases to establish that a person had been somewhere other than where he claimed to be. EZ Passes are used in states that have toll roads or toll bridges, as a way of allowing drivers to pre-pay the toll rather than wait in line at the toll booth. A scanner reads the EZ Pass as you drive by, and you probably never think about what happens to the information that's collected---notably, the date and time you pass each toll plaza.

Well, what happens is that it's stored at some remote location, possibly for years to come. And it's "discoverable" in court cases: a lawyer can serve a subpoena on the state transportation agency to produce the data related to a particular car. In a number of divorce cases, the data have proved that someone was lying about his whereabouts. He was, let's say, claiming to be working late at his office in Manhattan, but in reality had used his EZ Pass to cross the Triboro Bridge to see his girlfriend in Queens.

More recently, it turns out that both Apple's iPhones and Google's Android phones are continuously transmitting location information back to Apple and Google. Both companies say that users can disable the "location service" on their phone, but an independent test conducted by the Wall Street Journal showed that location data were still being collected and transmitted, even after the service had supposedly been disabled.

I'm not aware of any divorce cases in which cell phone location data have been subpoenaed, but I guarantee you it will happen, just as it has with EZ Passes. And it will reveal a lot more than EZ Passes do. It will reveal precisely where you were, when you were there, and how long you stayed there. If you happen to have taken your cell phone with you to a two-hour tryst at a cut-rate hotel during office hours, you may have some explaining to do.

Why is it So Hard to be Reasonable?

2011-04-21T15:54:00.000-07:00

"Honey, I know you didn't mean to upset me, but you did. Let's clear the air so we can move on to enjoying our relationship again." Sound familiar? Of course not.
From "Friendly Fight: A Smarter Way to Say I'm Angry" (April 19, 2011 Wall Street Journal column)

Elizabeth Bernstein writes the weekly "On Relationships" column for the Wall Street Journal, a column I enjoy reading because it's well-researched, well-written, and almost always about what I consider a "real world" relationship issue.

This week's coumn is a good example. Ms. Bernstein deals with something that most of us have been guilty of at one time or another (and some of us are guilty of all the time): expressing anger inappropriately. As she puts it:

"If someone upsets us, we often shout, stomp off, roll our eyes, or refuse to speak to the person. Or we pretend we aren't upset, until one day we explode over the seemingly littlest thing."

Why is it so hard to express anger in a mature way? One reason, according to psychologists quoted in Ms. Bernstein's column, is biological. When you get angry, your brain is flooded with chemicals and hormones, including adrenaline, which makes you want to either fight or run, and which can remain in your system for hours. There are also "mirror neurons" in our brain that make us subconsciously mimic a person we're interacting with. Thus, if the other person is showing signs of anger, we'll probably show them, too. In that sense, anger is contagious.

Another reason is childhood conditioning: we probably learned a dysfunctional style of expressing anger---or handling someone else's anger---from our parents. If your mother was prone to having emotional meltdowns, while your father was quickly retreating into a shell, there's a good chance that you're now exhibiting one or the other of those behaviors.

So, it's not easy to overcome our self-defeating approaches to expressing or reacting to anger. But it's not impossible. One of the experts quoted by Ms. Bernstein teaches people how to do it in five steps. I think they make sense.

The first step is to calm down. Let your emotions cool. Pick a good time to talk about the situation with the other person, maybe a day or two later.

The second step is to begin the conversation by acknowleging, in a calm tone of voice, that some of it may be hard for you to say or for the other person to hear.

The third step is to say "I" and not "you." "I was hurt yesterday by what happened," is less threatening than "You behaved badly yesterday," and less likely to lead to a retaliatory "What do you mean? You're the one who behaved badly!"

The fourth step is to find out why it happened. Maybe the other person had no idea he or she was offending you in some way.

The fifth step is to deal with the issue completely (but without dredging up any and all other issues from the past that could sidetrack you). Work together to figure out how to avoid repeating the same problem. And once you've achieved an understanding, try to express some appreciation and affection.

As I say, doing all this won't be easy, especially if you've been ranting and raving and slamming doors all your life. But it's certainly worth trying, and trying again until you get it right, because there's nothing more corrosive to a relationship than wounds that haven't healed.

Tracking Down a Lost Love: a Good Idea or Not?

2011-04-11T12:05:00.000-07:00

"We're in love again. To think we've found each other after all these years."
Phyllis Mitton, 86, who has recently been reunited with Mike Stadnyk, her long-lost boyfriend from 1945.

Thanks to Internet search engines and social networking sites, there are a lot of stories these days similar to that of Phyllis Mitton and Mike Stadnyk, who lost touch with each other after the Canadian Army transferred him to some distant base after World War II. They eventually married other people, and many years later were both widowed and wondering, "Whatever happened to...?"

It's a nice story, but there are also plenty of stories that don't turn out nearly as well: stories of people who are married to one person but have an irrestible urge to track down someone else. Ostensibly, the reason is mere curiosity ("I wonder if he ever finished that Ph.D. program he enrolled in"), but once the two former lovers get together the conversation quickly morphs from Ph.D. programs to how wonderful it was back then when they were together, and how unsatisfying their lives are now. It's not hard to predict what happens next.

So, should we or shouldn't we do a google search on someone we were once in love with? The answer, according to my friend, Dr. Nancy Kalish, is "It depends."

Dr. Kalish is a sociologist and university professor who is probably the world's leading expert on people who reunite with lost lovers (her website is http://www.lostlovers.com/). She knows all the happy-ending stories, and she also knows the ones that have ended badly. She says there are three main lost-lover categories. Depending on which category you're in, you should either plunge in enthusiastically, or you should proceed with caution, or or you should totally forget about it.

The Mitton-Stadnyk story is a classic example of a situation where there is no good reason not to try to resume the relationship. Because their separation back in 1945 was due to something beyond their control, they didn't really "break up" in the usual sense. They may have been sad at the time that things didn't work out, but they didn't feel animosity toward each other. Beyond that, they were both widowed prior to the recent contact, so there was no chance that a long-term marriage could be jeopardized. There was nothing to lose and everything to gain by trying to get back in touch.

A "proceed with caution" situation usually involve former lovers who are currently unmarried, but who broke up in an unhappy or even nasty way. According to Dr. Kalish, unless the wounds have completely healed on both sides, it could be a mistake to try to start over again. A person in this situation should ask himself or herself: "How hurt would I be if we were to break up again?" If the answer is "very hurt," then don't risk it.

The common denominator of "forget about it" situations is marriage, particularly a marriage that's on shaky grounds. When one person or the other is married, or both of them are, there's a high liklihood, according to Dr. Kalish, that one or both marriages will be jeopardized if the ex-lovers try to reunite. Even if the impulse to contact the other person is an innocent one, the old feelings will almost always come back, especially if there's an in-person meeting. In theory, the meeting could result in a purely Platonic friendship, but in the big majority of cases it would lead to an affair, or at least an increase in the level of marital frustration and dissatisfaction that already exists.

For better or worse, the Internet has allowed all of us to play private detective. Anyone with basic computer skills can gather more information on someone in five minutes than any of the famous private detectives of the 1940's movies could in five weeks. The question is: what do we do with that information? Usually, the best answer is to think long and hard about the person---and about yourself---before doing anything. To paraphrase the old saying about getting married without thinking it through: e-mail in haste, repent at leisure.

The Limitations of Niche Dating Sites

2011-04-05T10:54:00.000-07:00

"Apple users match up well, because they tend to have creative professions, a similar sense of style, and an appetite for technology."
From a New York Times article about some some new "niche" dating sites, including one solely for owners of Apple computers.

By definition, niche dating sites are not everything-for-everybody, one-stop-shopping kinds of sites. They're for people who want to narrow the universe of potential partners to people who are like themselves in some way they consider important. Thus, if religion is a big part of your life, you can find sites limited to people of your particular faith. If you're a book lover, there are sites where you can search for people with reading tastes that are similar to yours. If you're unlucky enough to have a sexually-transmitted disease, there are dozens of STD sites that allow you to avoid all those worries about what to say and when and how to say it.

There are literally tens of thousands of niche dating sites, some of them so specialized that you wonder how they can attract enough members to stay in business (e.g. stachepassions.com: a site for men with mustaches and the women who are turned on by them). Some niche sites are free, but most of them charge anywhere from $5.00 to $50.00 a month.

I can see the appeal of some of these sites. If you're Mormon, say, or Greek Orthodox, and you're 100% certain you only want to date within your faith, why join a site like match.com where only a tiny percentage of the members meet your requirements? If you don't feel you could date a meat-eater, why not join a vegetarian-only site? If opera is the biggest thing in your life, why waste your time with someone who not only hates it but ridicules it?

All of that makes sense. But it's important to realize that common interests and shared attitudes can only take you so far. For a relationship to succeed, there has to be chemistry between the two people. Having something in common may help break the ice by giving you something to talk about, but at some point a relationship requires more than just a mutual interest in, say, Apple computers or the novels of Jane Austen.

There's also a danger in attributing too much to a particular shared interest. We want to think that if a new person in our life is like us in some way, he or she will be like us in other ways, as well. But oftentimes that's not the case. We might both be dog-lovers, but that doesn't mean we have similar opinions about social or political issues. Or we might have similar opinions about social or political issues, but have incompatible communication styles.

The bottom line is that dating sites---whether niche or mainstream---can only, at most, identify candidates who might be suitable for us. No more, no less. That's why it's crucial that you meet someone you're interested in as soon as possible, and not get over-invested in him or her until then. When you're face-to-face, you can tell more about someone in five minutes than you can in five months' worth of e-mail exchanges. You can see what he actually looks like, how he dresses, how he talks, how (or if) he listens, whether he has any social skills, or, conversely, any annoying habits.

Chemistry may be hard to define, but one thing we know about it is that it can't be willed into existence. It's either there or it isn't, and all the common interests in the world can't create it or sustain it.

R.I.P. Elizabeth Taylor (1932-2011)

2011-04-01T14:30:00.000-07:00

"I will never love anyone but you. Period."
(From a love letter written by the 17 year-old Elizabeth Taylor to her then-boyfriend, William Pawley).

Given all the men who subsequently played romantic roles in Elizabeth Taylor's life, it's easy to chuckle at the irony of her promise to William Pawley, whom she dumped less than six months later to marry hotel heir Conrad ("Nicky") Hilton (a man she would divorce nine months after that). But I'm sure she meant every word she said, just as I'm sure that all seventeen year-old girls mean it when they pledge undying love to their boyfriends.

But Taylor, unlike many girls, remained something of a seventeen year-old the rest of her life. A while back, I read "Hellraisers: The Lives and Inebriated Times of Richard Burton, Peter O'Toole, Richard Harris, and Oliver Reed," a book in which Taylor figures prominently---and not only for the marathon drinking sessions she and Burton engaged in. (She was the only woman who, as Burton put it, "could drink me under the table," and the only person of either sex who physically terrified him). Even though she divorced Burton twice, she could never speak of him afterward without crying, and she often said she would have married him a third time if he had lived longer.

Taylor was also, believe it or not, a traditionalist---or at least an idealist---on the subject of marriage. She may have had seven divorces, but, as she once said in an interview, "If I had just shacked up with guys instead of marrying them, no one would have kept count." If she loved a man, she had to marry him. And if a husband didn't keep up his end of the bargain she wanted out, rather than limp along in a marriage that she considered unworthy of the name.

It was sad when Taylor died, but anyone who knew anything about her knew that she had done enough living for ten lifetimes. And she had endured enough pain for ten lifetimes, as well. She's in a better place now, but I like to think that we're all in a better place now because of her.

A Note to My Readers

2011-03-28T15:53:00.000-07:00

As some of you may know, I began writing this blog over three and a half years ago. For the first two years, I wrote a weekly essay on a relationship issue that was either prompted by something in the news (a politician's career ruined by an affair, a celebrity divorce, etc.), or by a quote from a famous writer (hence the "Quote & Comment" title of the blog).

In August of 2009, I changed the format of the blog to a "Dear Jim"-style advice column. I had been getting relationship questions from readers and answering them privately, but I felt that some of the questions were interesting enough, and important enough, to share with the rest of my readers. Since then, I've posted over eighty "Dear Jim" Q&A's, which have in turn prompted even more reader questions.

Just recently, I've been fortunate to find a larger readership for "Dear Jim." It will be appearing twice a month on www.Boomer-Living.com (the most widely-read website targeted to the Baby Boomer generation), and once a week in two Arizona newspapers: the Green Valley News and the Sahuarita Sun. Rather than posting the same Q&A columns that will appear on Boomer-Living or in the newspapers, I'll be switching back next week to my original blog format, offering what I hope is a unique and entertaining perspective on men-women relationships. You can, of course, still write to me (jim@attorneyatlove.com) with your relationship questions. As always, I thank you for your friendship and support.

Recovering-Alcoholic Husband is Unhappy with Social-Drinker Wife

2011-03-15T09:26:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: Long story short: my husband finally stopped drinking after fifteen horrible years for both of us, and is very active in AA (he goes three times a week). The problem is, I'm a moderate drinker and enjoy a glass of wine with dinner, but my husband says he can't be around anyone who's drinking, for fear that he'll relapse. So basically he's forbidden me to have any wine in the house or to order any if we go out. I don't want to go back to the "bad days" of our marriage, but it seems unfair that I have to give up something that I like just because he has a problem with it. The irony is that I've become sort of a closet drinker; I've stopped off a couple of times at a bar on the way home from work just to enjoy a glass of wine without being hassled. What should I do? ("J")

DEAR "J": First of all, let me say that it's great that your husband cared enough to get the help he needed. Untreated alcoholism can be as fatal to a marriage as affairs and verbal abuse; maybe even more so.

Having said that, though, I think your husband is demanding an awful lot of you. As you say, he want you to change because he has a problem. It's not as if you're one of his old drinking buddies urging him to have a beer or two with them. You're a moderate and seemingly-responsible drinker who wants him to stay sober but also wants to continue enjoying something that gives you pleasure. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with that.

I'm not an expert on alcoholism, but it seems to me that your husband is going overboard in trying to avoid situations where people are drinking in his presence. Does he feel he couldn't go to a baseball game if a guy in the row in front of him is drinking beer? Does he feel he couldn't go to a restaurant with a liquor license, for fear that he might see people enjoying a martini? Does he feel he couldn't go to a family wedding because there might be a champagne toast? If so, he's going to have to live in a very small, isolated world, and you're going to have to live there with him---and probably not too happily.

I think you should get involved with Al-Alon, the support group for spouses, children, and other family members of alcoholics. You're bound to meet people there who have dealt with issues similar to yours, and get some practical tips in how to encourage your husband to be less fearful and more reasonable. You and your husband may also want to have a consultation together with a professional alcoholism counselor; he or she may have the kind of credibility that your husband will respond to.

The good thing, "J", is that your husband seems determined never to relapse. My guess is that at some point---with professional help and with your input and support---he'll be more confident of his ability to stay sober without subjecting you to arbitrary and unfair rules. Good luck, and please let me know how it turns out.

Her Boyfriend and his Ex are Still Business Partners

2011-02-28T15:26:00.000-08:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I've been dating a 42 year old guy who's been divorced for three years. He and his ex-wife are both accountants. They formed a business partnership when they were married, but kept it going even after their divorce. She's engaged to be married this summer, and I believe him when he says they have no romantic feelings for each other anymore. But I get tired of hearing him mention her name all the time, and I feel uncomfortable with the idea that he's spending nine or ten hours a day with someone he used to be in love with. Am I being over-sensitive, or is he being insensitive? ("Ellen" from New Jersey)

DEAR ELLEN: Although it's understandable that you feel the way you do, I think you're being over-sensitive. Your boyfriend's relationship with his ex-wife is unusual, but it's not unheard of. There are more people than you might imagine who run businesses with their ex-spouses. Obviously, it takes a lot of maturity and mutual respect for people to put aside their differences for the sake of the business, but some people have those qualities. I think you're far better off having a boyfriend who respects his ex than one who is constantly disparaging her.

Having had business partners myself in the past, I know how rare it is to find one who is hard-working, honest, reliable, and personally compatible. When you have a partner like that, you want to do everything you can to keep him (or her). My guess is that your boyfriend and his ex each bring valuable and complementary talents to the businesss. Whatever differences they may have had as husband and wife don't seem to affect their working relationship.

I'm not saying it's easy for you to keep hearing the ex's name mentioned, but it's normal for someone to talk about the people he works with, especially if he works in a very small office. Unless your boyfriend is commenting on how beautiful his ex-wife is, or something else that would give you legitimate cause for concern, you shouldn't let it bother you. Try to pretend that the partner is someone named "Joe", and you'll probably feel less threatened about the situation.

Good luck, Ellen, and please let me know if this helps.

No Privacy in Her Own Home?

2011-02-22T13:06:00.000-08:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: Two years ago, I married a widower with a 22 year old son ("Adam") who was living at home with his father but graduating from college and about to move to another state for a job. Everything was fine until Adam was laid off three months ago and moved back to the area. He moved into an inexpensive apartment with an old friend of his, but he shows up here almost every day, without notice, to do his laundry, or watch TV, or see what's in the refrigerator. Half the time, his father isn't even home when he comes---he's just looking for a place to hang out. He still has a key to the house, and a couple of times I was in the shower and never even heard him come in (thank God I was dressed, but it still startled me to see him in the kitchen when I thought I was home alone. And, as a retired teacher, I'm home much of the day).

I've talked to my husband about it, but he doesn't think it's any big deal. In fact, I think he likes having Adam back, because he's the baby in the family and the two older ones are married and living a long way off. Is there anything I can do? ("No Privacy")

DEAR "NO PRIVACY": What you have here are two guys---a young one and an older one---who, in different ways, are clueless about how their behavior or attitude is affecting you. You shouldn't have to put up with this.

I know you've talked to your husband already, but maybe you didn't make it 100% clear to him just how much this is bothering you. You can start in a positive way. Tell him that it's understandable that Adam would still think of your home as his home. And say that it's great that he and Adam have a good relationship, and that you, yourself, would like to have a good relationship with Adam, but that it's difficult when he's constantly dropping by without calling.

Stress to your husband that you're not asking him to discipline Adam, but merely to educate him on some basic facts. And one of those facts is that the "house rules" changed (or should have changed) when your husband married you. When you speak with your husband, you should be prepared to suggest specific ways to safeguard your privacy without making Adam feel like an outcast, such as requiring Adam to call first and not to come over unless he's actually spoken to you (a voice or text message isn't enough) and made sure that the timing is good.

I'm optimistic that, once your husband understands your concerns, your problem should be at least minimized, and maybe solved. Good luck, and let me know what happens.

Her Boyfriend Refuses to Get a Divorce

2011-02-04T11:28:00.000-08:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I'm a 66 year-old widow and I've been involved with a man my age for the past three years. About six months ago I moved in with him, despite my concern that he's still legally married. He's been separated from his wife for over ten years. He tells me he hasn't seen her in all that time, and that the only way he even knows she's still alive is that his daughter sometimes gives him an update on what she's doing. He knows I'd like to get married, but he keeps telling me that he doesn't want to upset the applecart, so to speak. He says that if either he or his wife filed for divorce he'd have to pay her alimony, because his income was always a lot bigger than hers. Is that true? Their daughter was already on her own when they separated, and his wife has never asked him for support. I love the man, but I don't want to be taken advantage of. ("Geri")

DEAR GERI: Let me first point out that every state has different statutes concerning alimony and other financial aspects of divorce, so the only way you could find out with certainty if your boyfriend is correct is to consult an experienced divorce lawyer in whatever state would have "jurisdiction" if either your boyfriend or his wife filed for divorce.

Having said that, however, I strongly doubt that a divorce court anywhere would be likely to award his wife alimony. Nowadays, alimony is not automatically awarded in a divorce. Generally, it's limited to situations in which one spouse (usually the wife) has such limited job skills that she couldn't be expected to support herself without it. Your boyfriend's wife has somehow been able to get by for ten years without his financial help. It would be extremely difficult for her to claim at this point that she's entitled to alimony. I suppose that anything can happen in court, but I think your boyfriend is worrying about nothing.

Of course, your boyfriend may not really be worried about alimony, but rather using it as an excuse to avoid getting married again. Based on what you tell me, I can't say for sure if your boyfriend is being straightforward with you on this issue, but one way to find out is to urge him to consult with a divorce lawyer---ideally, with you present at the meeting---to get all the relevant information. If he refuses to meet with a lawyer, or refuses to let you accompany him, he's telling you, in effect, that the alimony excuse is a bogus one. Even apart from the fact that you'd like to get married, it wouldn't be a good sign if the man you're living with isn't telling you the truth about so basic an issue, or isn't bringing you into his major life decisions.

Good luck, Geri, and please let me know what happens.

She Had an Affair with Her Personal Trainer

2011-01-26T08:11:00.000-08:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: My situation is similar to the woman whose husband is overweight and a couch potato [see previous blog entry, dated 1/17/11]. In my case, though, I became attracted to one of the personal trainers at my gym, and wound up having an affair with him. It was wonderful for a few weeks, but then I learned through the grapevine that he was also seeing at least two other women from the gym. I don't want to be part of someone's harem so I broke it off, but I'm still fantasizing about other guys at the gym who have great bodies. Do you think it would motivate my husband to lose weight and get in shape if he knew that I'm turned on by guys who take pride in their appearance? ("Anonymous")

DEAR ANONYMOUS: I suppose some people can be motivated by fear and jealousy to change their behavior, but I wouldn't bet on it in your husband's case. In fact, knowing that you're attracted to other men may produce the opposite effect: he could become so depressed that he winds up eating or drinking even more.

I would also caution you not to blurt out a confession that you've been unfaithful. Unless your husband is certain to find out some other way, a confession is only going to hurt him and threaten your marriage, especially if you're not 100% determined that it will never happen again. Given how turned on you are by the men at your gym, I think it could easily happen again.

Your best bet is to try to motivate your husband in as positive a way as you can. At some point in your marriage he probably looked better---maybe a lot better---than he does now. You could show him pictures of himself when he was slimmer, and tell him how great he looked. If he used to work out or play sports, you could talk about how much energy he had, and how sexy he was in bed. And, as I told the other woman, you could try to help ease his way back into exercising by inviting him to go on walks with you.

I sympathize with your situation, "Anonymous," but if you truly want to save your marriage you've got to stop fantasizing about the guys at the gym. Affairs, like drugs, are usually nothing more than a quick escape from reality. Once the initial high wears off, you feel worse than before, which just makes you crave it again. It's a vicious cycle, and if it goes on long enough it will end badly.

Good luck, and please let me know what happens.

She's Into Nutrition and Fitness, He's Not

2011-01-17T08:01:00.000-08:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please submit any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I was seriously overweight for many years, but I've managed to lose over ninety pounds in the past two years. I could still lose a few more, but basically I like the way I look and love the way I feel. I walk at least three miles whenever the weather is good, and do weights at the gym several times a week. My problem is that my husband is a classic couch potato and likes it that way. He's 310 pounds and hasn't exercised regularly since he played football thirty years ago. He hates the nutritious meals I try to prepare for us, and often stops off at McDonald's on the way home from work to have burgers and fries. I'm sorry, but I just can't stand the smell of fried foods any more, and I don't want to be responsible if my husband has a heart attack. Any suggestions? ("Annie")

DEAR ANNIE: I'm not saying your husband is right and you're wrong, but if you genuinely want him to live a healthier lifestyle you've first got to look at things from his perspective.

He probably feels that you've changed the rules in the middle of the game. For most of your married life, it sounds as if you were both couch potatoes and both enjoyed eating fatty foods. But then you woke up and realized that you didn't want to live that way any more, and you actually did something about it. You deserve all the credit in the world for losing the weight and keeping it off, but your husband probably feels he's lost a wife---or at least a sympathetic wife.

If you want your husband to adopt your eating and exercise habits, you'll need to do it gradually. If you take him out of his comfort zone too quickly, he'll just rebel and dig in deeper, which is what he's doing when he goes to McDonald's. So, despite your aversion to them, you should still cook some fried foods for him, but in smaller portions and without as much gravy or other toppings. I'm not a nutritionist, but I know there are plenty of cookbooks, and magazines such as Cooking Light, that are full of tips on how to make meals that are filling and satisfying, but not loaded with calories.

As for exercise, you'll also want him to go slowly. If your husband tries to make up for lost time by doing some of his old football workouts, he really will have a heart attack. Urge him to come with you on one of your walks, but start with just a mile or so. And when he does start losing weight or walking longer distances, be sure to praise him. Tell him how much better he looks. Show more interest in him sexually. Reinforce your message in a way that's positive, not preachy.

Good luck, Annie, and please let me know what happens.

Women Tell Lies Online, Too!

2011-01-12T14:03:00.000-08:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: You made it sound like the only liars, losers, and scam artists in online dating are men [see previous Q&A dated January 4, 2011]. What about the women who post pictures showing all sorts of cleavage, and then act offended when you mention sex? Or the women who will order the most expensive things on the menu and have no intention of ever seeing you again? Or the women who spend hours putting down their ex, or talk only about themselves? I think you owe an apology to men. ("Disgusted")

DEAR DISGUSTED: The purpose of this column is to answer specific questions submitted by specific readers. The woman who wrote to me was asking about "red flags" that she might encounter in her online dealings with men, and I told her. If a man had asked me the same question, I would have given him a different answer (and then some woman would probably have complained that I was being too easy on men).

Yes, some women do mislead men, or take advantage of their generosity or gullibility, or are totally wrapped up in themselves or consumed with the need to get revenge on an ex. Women are definitely not perfect, but very few people active in online dating---male or female---are innocent when it comes to revealing the entire truth about themselves or their motivations.

Both men and women will lie in their profiles about their age or weight or education. Both men and women are often guilty of self-deception; they cling to an image of themselves that has no basis in reality. And, even if they do have a degree of self-awareness, both women and men are fearful that no one will write to them unless they present themselves in the best possible light, which can lead to all sorts of exaggerations and half-truths.

I've written before about how men need to be careful about over-committing emotionally to women they haven't even met in person, or over-spending on first dates, or reading too much into the fact that a woman's picture shows some cleavage. Men need to be both optimistic but realistic, and---just as women should---they need to pay attention to red flags.

On a first date, a man should never have to spend hours listening to a woman drone on about herself or her ex, because a first date shouldn't last for hours (unless both people are hitting it off tremendously). Nor should a man be fretting about the big bar or restaurant charges the woman is running up. A first date should be in a casual, inexpensive setting such as a coffee shop, where it won't be difficult for either person to cut the date short if things are clearly going badly. And a first date should carry no expectations whatsoever of sex happening that day---no matter how flirtatious the e-mails have been or how much skin the pictures showed.

I hope that you can put your negative experiences into perspective, and not lose hope of meeting the right woman. She's out there somewhere, but you'll never meet her if you view all women with mistrust.

Good luck!

What are the Red Flags in Online Dating?

2011-01-04T08:10:00.000-08:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I've been a widow since 2005, and I'm finally ready to start dating again. I'm nervous, though, because I haven't been on a first date since 1966! I keep hearing about all the "red flags" to watch out for on line dating sites, but I'm not really sure what they are. Can you enlighten me? (Peggy)

DEAR PEGGY: First of all, congratulations on having the courage to take the plunge.

In my opinion, the reddest of the red flags in online dating is a request for money. And I'm including not just a request for money, per se, but also requests from far-away members for you to pay for their airline tickets, hotels, or other travel-related costs in order for them to meet you.

If someone asks you for money or travel expenses, don't even respond; it's a scam of some sort, or at the very least someone who's desperate or looking for a "sugar mama." Most dating sites will allow you to block e-mails from people you don't want to hear from again, and you should do that immediately. You should also report the person to the site's administrator (there's usually a way to do that), so that other innocent people aren't victimized.

Another common red flag is a premature or inappropriate reference to sex. Unless your own profile indicates that you're interested in "casual encounters" or other sexually-oriented relationships, I would avoid men who come on too strong in this area. Although it's probably true that most men you correspond with will be hoping to have sex at some point, a man who's truly interested in a long-term relationship should be mature enough to want to get to know you first.

I would also be wary of profiles that suggest that the man has had bad experiences with women. If someone talks about having been dumped by past wives or girlfriends, or how he's looking for someone who can restore his faith in women, he's probably a man who is mistrustful, bitter, or clueless as to his own role in the failed relationships. Unless you're looking to rescue someone or serve as his unpaid therapist---and I hope you aren't---I'd avoid people like that.

In general, you need to read carefully what people say and how they say it. If something just doesn't sound right, or if someone makes you feel uneasy, don't bother reponding. When it comes to online dating, there's always someone else.

Good luck, Peggy, and please let me know what happens.

Spending Christmas with the Family of Boyfriend's Late Wife

2010-12-28T14:28:00.000-08:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: My boyfriend, "Eddie," is a 61 year old widower. Since his wife's death ten years ago, he's always spent Christmas Day with her parents and her brothers and sisters. (His own parents are deceased and he has no kids). He asked me to come with him this year (it's our first Christmas together), and although I wasn't wild about the idea I agreed to go. I wish I hadn't. I found the whole situation unsettling. Everyone was nice enough, but it was impossible not to be reminded every minute that I just don't fit in. Even worse, it made me feel like Eddie's past is more important to him than his future. On the drive home, I told Eddie that I wouldn't be doing this again, and that if he really cares for me the way he says he does, he should want to spend holidays with me only, or come with me to visit my daughter and her family in Oregon. He got really hurt, and barely spoke to me the rest of the way. We had dinner last night, but he still seemed offended. Was I wrong to say what I said? ("Confused" in Indiana)

DEAR CONFUSED: I sympathize with you, and I think that Eddie could have done a better job of anticipating how stressful the day was likely to be for you. But I do think you were wrong to say what you said.

I think a big part of the problem is that it was Christmas. For better or worse, Christmas and other holidays are loaded with anticipations, expectations, and---inevitably---disappointments. If Eddie went to see these people on a non-holiday, it probably wouldn't have been such a big deal to you. Yes, you might still have felt uncomfortable if you accompanied him, but it probably wouldn't have led to your issuing a "them or me" kind of ultimatum.

I doubt that it's true that Eddie's past means more to him than his future. Rather, I think that he values the important people in his life, and one of them is you. He wouldn't have asked you to accompany him to the Christmas get-together if he wasn't proud of you. He wanted them to meet this wonderful new woman in his life, and he wanted you to meet some nice people who meant---and still mean---a lot to him. As I said, he probably was a little insensitive with respect to your insecurities, but I think his heart was in the right place. And I think the reason he's hurt is that he had such high hopes of pleasing you.

You should tell Eddie that you're sorry for overreacting to a stressful situation. Let him know that you're not trying to undermine the relationship he has with his former in-laws. Stress to him that you love the fact that preserving relationships is so important to him, and that you hope that the relationship the two of you have is worth preserving, too.

And be willing to compromise and be creative. Christmas Day is obviously meaningful for you, but it's still only one day a year. Maybe next year, the two of you could start your own Christmas Eve tradition, even if he still wants to see the ex-in laws the next day. Or the two of you could leave on December 26 to visit your daughter. And, since you don't actually dislike these people, maybe you'll be more comfortable in their presence next year. You never know, you may actually, in time, reach the point where you look forward to seeing them.

Good luck, "Confused," and please let me know what happens.

Should She Get Divorced Without a Lawyer?

2010-12-20T07:36:00.000-08:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: My husband and I have been married three years. We have no kids and no real estate. We've jointly decided that we want a divorce (nothing terrible happened, but we're just not suited to living together). Do I, or we, really need a lawyer? My husband is on unemployment, and I'm barely getting by on my teacher's salary. I'd have to borrow money from my parents to afford a lawyer, and I'd rather not have to do that unless it's absolutely necessary. ("Nikki")

DEAR NIKKI: I'll answer your question in a moment, but let me first say that I hope you and your husband aren't giving up on your marriage too easily. Over the years, I've seen way too many short-term marriages end in divorce for the wrong reasons---over issues that, with some patience, creativity, and outside help could have been resolved.

If the two of you haven't tried marriage counseling, I urge you to give it at least a couple of sessions. Yes, it will cost money (although it's possible that your health insurance could cover at least some of the cost), but it would be money well spent if it works.

If you do ultimately decide to seek a divorce, there's nothing stopping you from doing it on a "pro se" basis (in other words, representing yourself without a lawyer). You can go to your local divorce court and ask the clerk for the appropriate forms, and the clerk has to give them to you. However, you'll be on your own after that. Most court clerks don't have the time or the inclination to sit down with you and help you fill out the forms. Beyond that, court clerks are prohibited from giving legal advice to pro se litigants. Because the distinction between legal information and legal advice is sometimes a very fine one, many clerks prefer to just hand you the forms and not answer any questions you may have. And if you fill out the forms incorrectly, you may not even be told what you did wrong.

Even if you manage to fill out the forms correctly, there's a good chance that you may inadvertently do something (or fail to do something) that could affect your finances for years to come. You and your husband may not own real estate together, but if you have credit cards in both of your names, or if your names are both on car loans, you need to sort through the legal implications of those debts, and the court is not going to help you do it. And then there's the issue of who brought what into the marriage, and who gets to keep the furniture, appliances, and other things you probably acquired during the years of your marriage.

My point is that even the "simplest" divorce is not always as simple as the husband and wife think it is. There are all kinds of legal rights and obligations that come into play that the average person would not even be aware of---until the divorce is final and there's nothing that can be done about them.

Hopefully, this will be the only divorce you ever have to go through (assuming you have to go through it at all). You want to do it right. The good thing is that the legal fees may not be that expensive if the issues really are straightforward and if you and your husband don't argue over every little thing.

I realize it's easy for me to say this because it's not my money. But I honestly believe that representing yourself in a divorce is a bad idea.

Good luck, Nikki, and please let me know what happens.

To Tell---or Not to Tell---Her Husband She Has a Male Friend

2010-11-23T15:21:00.000-08:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: The letter from the lady who likes to dance but her husband doesn't [see blog entry dated November 19, 2010] is a bit like my situation. I, too, am retired and have become enthusiastic about watercolor painting, something I used to do but never had enough time for when I was younger. My husband, though, has never had any interest in art. That's OK with me, but I've met a really nice man in my class who is a very good painter and who has invited me to a couple of art openings and receptions. A part of me would like to go, but I haven't said anything to my husband about having a male friend, and I don't know how he'd react. My friend, by the way, is divorced, but he's been nothing but a gentleman and I'm sure he's not looking for anything other than friendship. Should I say something to my husband, or would that just be asking for trouble? ("CJ")

DEAR CJ: I definitely believe that it's possible for a man and a woman to have a Platonic friendship, provided that they're both careful about crossing the line from friendship to romance. However, because some people do cross that line, I believe that married people should be honest with their spouses about such friendships, and, if necessary, hash out any issues that may arise.

Your husband hasn't told you he doesn't want you to go places with your friend, and for all you know he might be totally agreeable to the idea. So, coming out and telling him might resolve the problem on the spot.

And even if your husband reacts negatively, at least the situation is out in the open. My guess is that, if you didn't say anything to your husband, eventually you'd go to one of those art events anyway, because that's what you seem to want. And if that happened and your husband heard through the grapevine that you were there with a man---a man he had never heard about---your motives would immediately be suspect.

If you can present the facts to your husband the same way your presented them to me---that you and your friend have a common interest in art but that neither of you is interested in anything more than a friendship---he ought to react in a mature way. If he doesn't, you'd still be within your rights to go to the occasional art opening with your friend, although you'd want to be careful not to rub salt into your husband's wounds. So, don't go out to dinner afterward with your friend, don't start seeing him for drinks, etc. At some point, your husband would realize that he has nothing to worry about.

Good luck, CJ, and please let me know what happens.

Her Dancing Makes Hubby Jealous

2010-11-19T12:11:00.000-08:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: My husband and I have been retired for three years. We moved to an age-restricted community where we have met many other couples, and we frequently socialize with them at our community center, especially on weekend nights when they have live music and dancing. I love to dance but, unfortunately, my husband doesn't. I've tried everything to get him interested, but he won't even go to the free lessons they have here. I could live with that---after all, I don't enjoy everything he likes, such as golf---but I can't stand the fact that he gets jealous if I dance with other men. He won't say anything at the time, but after we leave he'll ask me why I can't just do line dances the way a lot of women who don't have partners do. Jim, I enjoy dancing with a man! Is that so bad? All the men I've danced with are happily married and their wives don't mind. ("Phyllis")

DEAR PHYLLIS: Your husband is being unreasonable and immature. Unless you're doing something inappropriate out there on the dance floor---dancing way too close, for example---or unless you've been unfaithful in the past and your dancing with men is reminding him of that, you have every right to enjoy yourself when you're out listening to music. And you've done your best to bring him into the world of dancing. If he's not interested, that's his choice, but he has no right to stop you from doing something that's perfectly innocent.

Of course, you still have to deal with the fact that you're married to a man who is at least sometimes unreasonable and immature. If this is the only situation that brings out his jealousy, it's probably no big deal: just stick up for yourself, ignore his petulance, and dance all you want with a clear conscience. Of course, it probably wouldn't hurt if you showed him extra attention when you're not out on the dance floor, and avoid making unnecessary comments about the men you were dancing with.

But if your husband's pouting gets worse, or if he starts getting suspicious of other interactions you may have with men (questioning you at length if he saw you talking to some guy at the supermarket, etc.), you may have a more serious problem on your hands. Be watchful for any red flags that may be telling you that he's got control issues, which may well require the help of a professional counselor or therapist.

I hope it doesn't come to that, Phyllis, but let me know if it does. In the meantime, have fun!

She's Tempted by an Ex-Lover

2010-11-10T12:12:00.000-08:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I need some advice in a hurry. The other day, out of the blue, I got an e-mail from a guy I was involved with nearly twenty years ago, telling me that he's coming out to my city on business for a week and would like to see me. Back then I was very much in love with him, at least until I found out that he was seeing two other women at the same time. He and I supposedly had a committed relationship, and it hurt me deeply to learn that he had been unfaithful. We had a big argument, and never contacted each other again until now.

We both eventually married other people, but now I'm divorced and he's still married (unhappily, he says). I normally wouldn't get involved with a married man, but the truth is he was a great lover, and right now I have no sex life whatsoever (I've got two teenage kids who take up most of my time). Would I be crazy to see him again, or crazy not to? ("On the Fence" in Florida)

DEAR "ON THE FENCE": I don't know if you'd be crazy to see him, but I think you'd regret it.

Do you honestly think you could have sex with this particular guy without becoming emotionally involved with him all over again? I suppose it's possible, but I tend to doubt it. And if those feelings were to come back, how would it feel to have to break up with him---in a sense---a second time? It hurt bad the first time, and it could still hurt bad now---despite the fact that this time you'd know all along he has someone else.

Being hurt a second time would be a genuine concern even if he were unmarried. But his marital status only makes the situation worse. If he's telling the truth that his marriage is an unhappy one, do you want to get pulled into the drama of whether he should stay with his wife or leave her? Could you handle being the "other woman" in a divorce case, or simply knowing that you've violated your principles about not getting involved with someone who's married?

And if he's lying about his "unhappy" marriage in order to make you feel less guilty about having sex with him, how will it feel to know you've been lied to (again)?

All in all, I see this ending badly for you, one way or another.

I'm not ignoring what you said about your nonexistent sex life. That's a legitimate problem for you and countless other women in your situation. Having a fling with a married man may appear to solve the problem, at least temporarily, but it's only going to create new problems. If you have time to be thinking about, and sleeping with, your former boyfriend, you have time to take some steps to meet men who are truly available. And who knows? Some of them might be great lovers, too!

Good luck, "On the Fence," and please let me know what happens.

His Girlfriend is Micro-Managing her Adult Daughter's Life

2010-11-03T14:11:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please submit any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I'm 59. I've had some relationships in the ten years since my divorce, but until I met my current girlfriend ("Marti") most of them were pretty casual. I really like Marti and I think the feeling is mutual, and I can forsee a time when we might move in together.

The only thing that bothers me about Marti is her relationship with her 26 year-old daughter, who is unmarried but has two kids. I don't think an hour goes by---even when we're having dinner out---without either Marti calling her daughter or her daughter calling her. Most of the time, the calls are about trivial things that could wait until after dinner or even the next day. For example, just last night the daughter called to tell Marci about some new guy she had met on a dating site. That took up ten minutes. A half hour later, Marti called her back because she had forgotten to ask about how her granddaughter's dental visit had gone that day. And then a half hour after that, as I was driving her home, Marti called her again to remind her that she had to set her alarm early for a job interview in the morning.

The daughter is an only child, and Marti is a widow, so I can understand that the mother-daughter relationship here is a close one. But I feel sometimes that the relationship is too close, and that I'm the odd man out. Any thoughts? ("Bill" in California)

DEAR BILL: I think mother-daughter relationships often seem too close to men who are observing them. And when you add grandchildren into the mix, the relationship can get even closer, and more complicated. So, if you're going to be involved with a woman with kids---any woman with kids---there's a certain amount of mother-daughter communication (and sometimes mother-daughter craziness) that goes with the territory.

However, from what you're telling me, Marti's relationship with her daughter goes beyond what I would consider normal limits. It appears she's micro-managing her daughter's life, or at least is over-invested in the details of her life.

It also appears that Marti has no idea of how rude it is to be constantly taking and making non-emergency calls when she's having dinner with someone, especially when the "someone" is a man she's supposedly involved with romantically. That would be a huge turn-off for me, and I would think for just about any man. Usually, people are trying to make their best impression in the early stages of a relationship, so if nothing changes in this regard you can only imagine what things will be like if you move in together.

You don't want to criticize Marti or lecture her on the dangers of over-involvement in an adult child's life. But you have to let Marti know how you feel about being the "odd man out." My guess is that Marti and her daughter have had this 24/7 kind of communication pattern for so long that neither of them sees anything unusual about it, or stops to think about how someone else might be affected by it.

I know it's never fun for a man to have a "relationship talk" with his wife or girlfriend, but this is a talk you really need to have. (And maybe you should tell Marti to turn off her phone before you begin).

Good luck, Bill, and please let me know what happens.

Should She Sue Ex-Boyfriend for Giving Her Herpes?

2010-10-08T08:42:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I just broke up with a man I had been seeing for a few months. The reson I broke up with him is that I contracted herpes from him, and he never told me he had it. In fact, what angers me the most is that he's actually denying he has it and is implying that I must have gotten it from another man. Jim, I was celibate for three years before I met this person, and I have never had an STD of any kind until now. He's a partner in an accounting firm, and I feel he should pay me not only for whatever medical costs I may incur but also for the anguish he's put me through. Can I sue him? Also, if I ever start to date again---and right now I'm not sure I want to---when and how should I tell people that I'm infected? ("No Name" in Atlanta)

DEAR "NO NAME": Let me first say that I cannot give legal advice to my readers, and even if I could I don't know anything about the relevant statutes and court decisions in the state of Georgia. You should certainly make an appointment to see a local lawyer, preferably someone who specializes in personal injury or "tort" law. And you should do it soon, because at some point the "statute of limitations" could make it impossible to file a lawsuit.

In general, though, I can tell you that pursuing a lawsuit of this nature will put you through the wringer emotionally. You should anticipate that your sexual history (and his, too) will at some point be examined. You should also anticipate that the case could drag on for a long time, which means that you're going to be obsessing about these issues all the time, and not getting on with your life. (Of course, lawsuit or not, it's hard not to obsess about having a disease for which there's no known cure).

I'm not saying this to discourage you from pursuing your claim, but only to warn you that lawsuits are not for the faint of heart.

As for telling potential sex partners about your condition, I certainly recommend that you be 100% honest with people (you don't want someone saying the same things about you that you're saying about your ex-boyfriend). You should disclose the facts as soon as you feel there's any realistic chance you might be having sex with a particular person. In other words, if you meet someone on a first date and you know right away you're not attracted to him and will probably never see him again, you don't have to blurt out "Oh, by the way, I have herpes." But if there's a mutual attraction, don't wait until you've invited the man over to your house, or accepted his invitation to go away for the weekend.

Along these lines, you could probably find a herpes support group, where you could get real-world insights and advice from others who are coping with the condition. And you could avoid the awkward "disclosure conversation" altogether by joining a dating site that caters exclusively to people with herpes and other STDs. There are actually quite a few such sites.

Good luck, "No Name," and please let me know what happens.

The Trials of Trial Separations

2010-09-28T08:42:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I'm 42 and have been married for three years (first time for me, second for my wife). We have no kids. Two months ago, my wife and I separated. It was her idea. She said she needed some time and space to think things through. (We had been arguing a lot, mainly about lifestyle issues---she likes to stay home all the time while I like to go out with friends, etc.). I moved out and am living in a very small studio apartment. I talk to my wife a few times a week, but haven't seen her in person since we separated. I'm feeling really lonely, and two weeks ago I met a woman on craigslist who is also separated, although in her case she's already filed for divorce from her husband. She's telling me I'm a fool to be waiting forever for my wife to make up her mind. She's not exactly pressuring me to file for divorce, but she says that if I know I'm not getting back together with my wife I can move in with her. How long should it take my wife to make up her mind? ("Robbie" in Missouri)

DEAR ROBBIE: Your situation is a good example of why people shouldn't separate---even on a "trial" basis---without coming up with some mutually-agreed-on ground rules.

One of those ground rules involves the length of time needed to work out the problems that led to the separation. Your wife evidently hasn't given you a clear idea of how long it will be before she's "made up her mind," nor has she asked you to work with her in some way to resolve the problems (e.g., going to counseling together, or at least meeting for coffee once or twice a week to talk things over). This is just asking for trouble.

Another necessary ground rule in any trial separation involves seeing other people. In general, forming new relationships during a separation is a very bad idea. As you've already seen, the new person may have a completely different agenda from yours, and that agenda is not likely to include saving your marriage. It's understandable that you're feeling lonely and rejected, but it's vital that you understand that relationships that begin out of desperation almost always end badly.

My advice is to break off with this new woman immediately, and take a more pro-active approach with your wife. Explain to your wife that resolving your marital problems is not something that she can do by herself; you both need to work together on it, and that you're ready, willing, and able to do what it takes (or at least I hope you are, because words without actions won't get you very far).

If, after a few months of sincere and intense effort, it's clear that your marriage just can't be saved, then you can proceed to divorce knowing that you've done everything you could. But, even then, I wouldn't be quick to get into a new relationship. Unless you truly understand what went wrong the last time, and resolve to change any faults of your own that contributed to the break-up, you'd only be setting yourself up for another failure.

Good luck, Robbie, and please let me know how this turns out.

40 Years and 40 Pounds Later: a Beauty Contest Winner's Lament

2010-09-18T09:28:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please submit any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I'm 62 and have been a widow for five years. I met a very nice man---"Sam"---a few months ago who seems to be crazy over me. Believe me, I appreciate the attention, but he sometimes goes too far. Whenever we're out with friends, or when he introduces me to his family members, he always mentions that I was once a beauty pageant winner. Jim, that was forty years ago! And it's not like I was Miss America. It was a local pageant in my little hometown in Minnesota. The problem for me is not just that I'm older, but that I've gained forty pounds over the years. I don't look anything like what you'd expect a former beauty pageant winner to look like, and I can sometimes see the skeptical looks on peoples' faces. I told Sam I was embarrassed by these references, and I could see his feelings were hurt. He says he's proud of me and wants everyone to know it. Again, I don't want to seem ungrateful, but is there any way to get Sam to stop without hurting his feelings? ("M" in Dallas)

DEAR "M": I guess your situation proves that there really can be too much of a good thing. A lot of women would love to have a boyfriend or husband who brags about them---or at least they think they would. Sam's heart is clearly in the right place, but he needs to be more sensitive about your sensitivity in this matter (although I have to wonder whether the people you meet are really that skeptical; no rational person expects any 62 year old woman---beauty contest winner or otherwise---to weigh what she weighed when she was 22).

Anyway, I think you should try talking to Sam again about this. Pick a time when you're both relaxed and in a good mood. Tell him that you love all his attention and his compliments, but that you'd rather he not mention the beauty pageant stuff. You might have to say that you're being a little over-sensitive, but that it's not uncommon for women to be over-sensitive about weight and age. Tell him you're happy you're still a beautiful woman in his eyes, but you'd rather he keep the flattering remarks private. If his friends and family truly think you're beautiful, they don't need him to tell them that.

I also think the "problem" should take care of itself before too long. Your relationship is a relatively new one, and you're meeting the people in Sam's life for the first time. At some point, Sam will have told everyone he knows about your beauty contest past. Unless he's prone to repeating himself, he'll probably stop making these references.

Good luck, "M", and please let me know how it turns out.

Are Long-Distance Relationships a Waste of Time?

2010-09-02T14:33:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I'm 56, divorced, and live in the mountains of North Carolina. I work in a female-dominated field (medical claims administration), and don't meet many eligible men in my daily life, so I've registered with a couple of online dating sites. I've received very few responses from men who live anywhere near here, and the two dates I've had were disappointing (one guy had totally distorted his work and marital history, and the other one was incapable of conversation). Just this past weekend, though, I was contacted by a man who looks and sounds great, but who lives nearly a thousand miles away. He says he's always fantasized about visiting this area, and would like to come for a long weekend next month. He's not suggesting he stay with me or anything like that, but I'm wondering now if the whole thing is just a waste of time. I'm not looking for a three-day romance, nor am I looking for someone who's just going to be a pen-pal afterward. Is this doomed from the start? ("Shelly" in Asheville)

DEAR SHELLY: Well, it's probably doomed if you think it's doomed. It seems to me that, as long as you're not leading this man on in some way (e.g., implying that you'll have sex with him that weekend), there's absolutely no harm in seeing what happens. If he turns out to be yet another disappointment, so what? What will you have lost?

But if he's as great in person as he seems on the computer screen, you're not necessarily limited to either a brief fling or a pen-pal relationship. A relationship could evolve in any number of ways. If he likes the area enough (and likes you enough), he may come back more often, possibly for longer periods. He might even , at some point, want to move to Asheville. That may sound far-fetched, but people move all the time for all sorts of reasons. You haven't told me what his employment situation is, but maybe he owns a small business that can be relocated; or maybe he can work for extended periods from remote locations; or maybe he's close to retirement and could move anywhere. The fact that he took the trouble to contact someone in Asheville seems to imply that he at least has a genuine interest in the area.

A long-distance relationship can actually be a good thing, especially for people in their fifties or beyond who have gotten used to a fair amount of independence. Seeing someone every so often, but communicating frequently by phone or e-mail in between those visits, is a way of developing a relationship without the pressure of having to see a person all the time, or without disrupting a daily routine that may be comfortable for you.

Given that you don't have any other romantic relationship right now, I see no reason not to give this a chance. So think positively, enjoy whatever time you spend with this man, and don't try to force things afterward. Good luck, Shelly, and please let me know what happens.

Is She Asking the Wrong Question?

2010-08-23T09:16:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: A woman I work with filed for divorce recently after thirty-three years of marriage. I'm not that close to her and have never met her husband, but she told me at lunch last week that it just hit her one day that she didn't find him attractive any more, either physically or in a personality sense. She said that when she asked herself if she would be attracted to him if she had just met him today, she couldn't honestly answer yes. She felt she had been going through most of her marriage with blinders on, ignoring faults and shortcomings and incompatibilities.

Since that lunch conversation, I've been asking myself if I would be attracted to my husband if I met him today for the first time, and I'm not sure I could say yes. He's a nice guy, but he's let himself go physically over the years and our sex life is almost non-existent (he's 59, I'm 55). I don't want to do something I'll regret, but I don't want to wake up someday and realize it's too late to start over again. Can you help me figure out what to do? ("M.J.")

DEAR M.J.: Your co-worker's story seems to have touched a nerve. It sounds as if you've been aware---maybe for a long time---of frustrations in your marriage, but the co-worker's divorce has brought it all to the surface. I don't advocate ignoring problems and hoping they'll just go away. But neither do I advocate taking drastic measures when less-drastic ones may solve the problems.

My guess is that there's more to your co-worker's story than she's told you. I'm not saying she's lying, but because you're not her close friend you're probably getting a simplified, sanitized version of what happened. The question she raises ("Would I be attracted to him if I met him today for the first time?") is, in my opinion, the wrong question. It's artificial. If you really met someone today for the first time, he would be, to you, a blank slate. He'd have no faults (unless they were obvious ones), no baggage. He's never disappointed you. He could be just about anything you wanted him to be. With your husband, it's impossible to think of him as a blank slate. You know his faults all too well, and you can't pretend you don't.

I think the right question to ask is, "Do I still love this man enough to try to make our marriage more satisfying?" If you can't answer yes to that, then drastic measures may be called for. But if you feel you still love him, your focus should be on working to enhance the marriage.

Because sexless marriages are often characterized by a combination of medical and psychological causes, as well as by avoidance and embarrassment, you're going to need outside help. I can't tell you for sure if that help will include medical specialists, sex therapists, or marriage counselors, but you and your husband should probably begin with frank discussions with your primary care doctors. You might have to gently but firmly urge your husband to do that, but as long as you avoid blaming him or berating him for the situation you're in, he shouldn't resist too vehemently.

Good luck, M.J., and please let me know what happens.

Is it Wrong to Say "I Love You?"

2010-08-16T14:38:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I'm 34 and have always been single, although I've twice lived with men and have had several other serious relationships. I'm currently seeing a great guy, but I'm having the same frustration with him that I did with almost everyone else. He never says "I love you" unless I say it first. And even then I can tell that he's just kind of embarrassed and wants to say something. Are all men like this? Am I doing something wrong by expressing my feelings? ("Nicole" in California)

DEAR NICOLE: I don't think all men are like that, but, in general, men tend to feel awkward about expressing their emotions verbally. And as you've noticed, the awkwardness can increase when men are put on the spot. Saying "I love you" to a man does tend to put him on the spot.

Having said that, I certainly wouldn't discourage a woman from expressing her love for a man. If you're truly in love, and have reason to believe the feeling is mutual, why not say it? But I'm wondering if perhaps you're expressing it too early in your relationships. Some people fall head-over-heels in love almost from Day One, and saying the magic words "I love you" just intensifies the pleasure and the rush of emotions they're experiencing. The problem is that the man may not be falling in love quite so quickly (or, sadly, maybe not at all). At the very least, he may need more time to process his emotions.

Maybe you could make it easier on your boyfriend by using the word "love" in a way that is less threatening to him. Instead of saying "I love you", say "I love the way you make me feel", or "I love the way you kiss me", or "I love being with you." That way, he gets to hear the word "love" in a romantic but non-intimidating context. Before long, he might start telling you, without prompting, that he "loves" the way you smell, or the way you laugh, or the way he thinks about you throughout the day. It may or may not lead to his saying "I love you," but it can certainly pave the way.

Incidentally, it's worth noting that a lot of women have had their hearts broken by men who are too quick to say "I love you." Some guys---the pick-up-artist types---will say anything, no matter how insincere, to get a woman into bed. Others will perhaps mean what they say when they say it, but will lose interest in the woman soon afterward. Whatever pleasure you get from men like that is going to be very short-lived.

Anyway, good luck, Nicole, and please let me know what happens.

Her Boyfriend Won't Tell Her Anything About His Divorce

2010-08-09T07:55:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I'm 48 and have been divorced for ten years. I started dating again a year ago once my only child graduated from high school. I had a lot of first dates but I was frustrated with the fact that most of the guys I met were recently divorced. It seemed like all they ever wanted to talk about was how they got screwed over by their ex-wife or the wife's attorney. In my opinion, guys like that aren't ready for dating, no matter what they say. A few months ago, I finally found someone who has been divorced about as long as I have. He seems to be a great guy, but he has the opposite problem (if you think it's a problem): he won't say a word about his ex-wife or the circumstances of his divorce. All he'll say is that it was long ago and that he doesn't feel like re-hashing all the dreary details. In a way I can appreciate that, but I also feel a little uncomfortable not knowing anything about what is usually a major event in someone's life. What do you think? ("Dawn" in Florida)

DEAR DAWN: I think you're right to feel a little uncomfortable, especially if you're hoping that your relationship with this man will be a long-term one.

It's not unusual for people---especially men---to have something in their past that they'd rather not have to talk about. A lot of men prefer to deal with their problems by working them out in their head until they feel they've got them figured out. In their minds, talking with someone else---especially someone who wasn't there at the time and doesn't know all the people involved---wouldn't change anything and would just dredge up issues that are dead and buried.

Although I can understand why men might feel this way, I think it's unfair for a man not to share at least some of the crucial facts about his life with a woman he's been going out with for several months. It's not as if you're being nosy for the sake of being nosy. If you're serious about this man---or any man, for that matter---you have a legitimate right to know whether there are events in his life that could affect your relationship with him in the future. You've already learned that a lot of divorced men are bitter about their ex-wives or the circumstances of their divorce. If your current boyfriend is still harboring that kind of bitterness (even if he keeps it under control by refusing to talk about it), you need to find that out sooner rather than later.

I think you should be gently persistent. Try not to make him feel under attack, but let him know that you care about him and you hope you have a long future with him, and you need to know more about who he is and how he feels about women and marriage and other issues that are important to you.

Good luck, Dawn, and please let me know what happens.

Insights on Relationships from a Nutritional Consultant

2010-07-30T08:24:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions posed by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I am a professional nutritional consultant. I think it's important for your readers to know that some of the behaviors that can negatively affect relationships can be the result of hormonal imbalances and compromised immune systems. I was speaking on the phone yesterday to a computer consultant about some website matters. I could tell from his tone of voice that he was tense and probably dealing with some issues in his life. He eventually opened up and told me that his wife has been behaving erratically and is threatening to leave him. From what he told me about his wife, it seems likely that she has hormonal imbalances that have affected her immune system and caused her to frequently lose control and become enraged. I urged him to go to my website and learn about nutrition in general, and specifically how his wife can rebuild her immune system and restore her hormones to their proper balance through nutritional means, such as juicing and taking kale.

I hope you can share this story, because so many people are dealing with problems that they don't realize are nutritionally-related. Typically, their doctors are not trained in nutrition, and thus often fail to diagnose the underlying conditions, leaving the patients frustrated and desperate for a solution. Doctors might unfairly label such patients as hypochondriacs, which only increases the frustration. The good news is that many of these problems can be addressed easily and effectively by preventative nutritional care. I would be happy to discuss any of these issues in greater detail with your readers. Thanks for helping me get the word out!
Andrea Yvonne Lee
Palm Harbor, Florida
www.nclhealth.com
(727) 449-0944

DEAR ANDREA: Until I received your e-mail, I confess that I had never given much thought to the role that nutrition plays in human behavior and interpersonal relationships. But now, when I think back on some of the "difficult" clients I used to deal with (and some difficult people I'm still dealing with), it seems quite plausible that they were struggling with hormonal imbalances of one sort or another. I'm glad you're so concerned about people and their well-being, and I urge anyone reading this to go to your website or contact you directly. Thanks for your insights.

She's Sick of Being Called "Stupid"

2010-07-24T10:37:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I'm 26 and have been going with a guy for about a year. There's one thing about him that bothers me. He is always either saying that I'm stupid, or that something I'm doing (like watching certain TV shows or reading People magazine) is stupid. I've told him plenty of times that I don't appreciate being called stupid, and he always replies that it's only because he knows I'm a smart person that he's being tough on me. In other words, he's holding me to a higher standard than he'd hold someone else. Because of this, he thinks it's sort of a compliment when he criticizes me. Am I being too sensitive? ("Kim" in Oklahoma)

DEAR KIM: No, you're not being too sensitive. Your boyfriend is trying to put a good spin on his obnoxious and insulting remarks, but, to your credit, you're not buying it.

When a man habitually calls a woman stupid, it's a red flag. It's often a sign that he's trying to control the woman or bully her into becoming something other than what she is. It can also mean he's contemptuous of her, or that he's contemptuous of himself for not having a "smarter" woman in his life. At the very least, it's a sign that he's arrogant and tactless.

I'm not necessarily saying your relationship is hopeless, but it will be if your boyfriend doesn't make some big changes in a hurry. You've got to keep standing up for yourself whenever he utters the word "stupid," and you've got to cut him off the minute he goes into the bogus
explanation that he's really complimenting you. Tell him politely but firmly that that's not the kind of compliment you appreciate.

You could also tell your boyfriend---in a lighthearted but serious way---that you're going to fine him five dollars each time he calls you or something you do "stupid." And then do it. As soon as he utters the word, stop him dead in his tracks and say, with a smile, "Five dollars, please." If he can smile back, then maybe there's hope for him. But if it just makes him rant all the more about your "stupid" fines and your "stupid" sensitivity to his words, then you should throw in the towel on this relationship, because the situation will only get worse.

Good luck, Kim, and please let me know what happens.

Do They Have an "Exclusive" Relationship?

2010-07-11T09:13:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I'm 36 and have been single for about a year, after a marriage that lasted six years. I don't have any kids. Not long after my divorce, I joined the Plenty of Fish dating site, and quickly met a guy I really clicked with. He lives about fifty miles away, but we talk every day and we spend most weekends together. After we had been dating a couple of months, I discontinued my membership with Plenty of Fish, but I recently found out that he's still very much an active member. (Even if you're not a member, you can search the site and find out when someone was last logged in. Every time I checked him out, it said, "Online Today"). When I asked him about it, he first got offended that I was cyber-stalking him, and then after he calmed down he said there are a couple of women on the site he still enjoys corresponding with, even though he's never met them and has no intention of meeting them. My friends think he's lying. I want to believe him but I don't really know what's considered normal behavior on dating sites. Also, was I wrong to search the site to see if he was still active on it? ("Brandi" from South Carolina)

DEAR BRANDI: I'll answer your second question first: I don't think you were wrong to check out your boyfriend's membership status. Given that your relationship is still relatively new and that you only see him on weekends, you did what a lot of people in your position would do. Until you know someone well enough to trust him instinctively, it never hurts to verify the situation. However, if you're obsessively checking his status every day, you're only going to make yourself a nervous wreck, and you'll soon cross the line and become a real stalker.

As to whether his continued presence on the site is an innocent one, there's no easy way of knowing with 100% certainty. He could be corresponding with someone a thousand miles away about their mutual interest in foreign films, or he could be lining up weeknight dates with women from his home town. I would think, though, that if his relationships with the women he mentioned are purely Platonic, he doesn't need to correspond with those women through the dating site. They could simply give each other their "real" e-mail addresses, and he could discontinue his membership and still keep up the friendship. So, I guess I'm a little skeptical of his story, even though I do believe in the possibility of men-women friendships.

I think the bigger issue here is that you seem to want a committed and exclusive relationship with someone so soon after your divorce. Maybe it would be better for everyone if you scaled back your expectations for a while and tried to meet a variety of people---or even put the dating process itself on the back burner and get to know yourself better and be comfortable with being single again. You don't necessarily have to terminate your current relationship, but maybe a bit of breathing room might be good for both of you.

Good luck, Brandi, and please let me know what happens.

The Caregiver Blues---Part Two

2010-07-06T14:37:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please direct any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: The letter from the lady from Florida [see previous blog post, dated June 21, 2010] brought back some sad memories. When I was 50---I'm 64 now---I married for the second time. My new husband was twelve years older than me, but seemed to be in great health. Unfortunately, six months after we married he started showing symptoms of Parkinson's Disease. It didn't turn him into an invalid overnight, but slowly but surely it took over his life---and mine, too. To make a long story short, he lived another ten years. By the time I was 55, I had to give up my job in order to care for him, and, to be honest, I was pretty resentful much of the time. Unlike the lady from Florida, I wasn't tempted to have sex with anyone else, but there were times I just wanted to pack up my car and drive off into the sunset. I didn't, but I have to admit I felt a great relief when my husband finally passed away.

I find myself now in a situation where for the past nine months I've been seeing a man my age. I met him at a widows/widowers club, and he's very marriage-minded. I enjoy his company immensely, but whenever he brings up the subject of marriage all I can think about are my years as a caregiver. I hate to be morbid or selfish, but I just don't think I could go through that again. Am I destined to be alone? ("Sally" in Texas)

DEAR SALLY: You've been through one of the toughest experiences I can imagine. It's difficult enough being a caregiver to someone you've been married to for thirty or forty years. But to take on that role so soon after you've gotten married requires almost superhuman dedication.

I also admire the fact that you're honest enough to admit that the caregiver role was a difficult one for you. Many people are afraid to confront their supposed weaknesses, or are too quick to forget the lessons they learned about themselves.

I don't think you should ignore your fears. Statistically, men tend to die six or seven years younger than women do, and most of those deaths are preceded by a period of illness or disability. So there's a fairly good chance that you may be called on again to be a caregiver.

On the other hand, I don't think you should let your fears overwhelm you. The man you're seeing could beat the odds and live another twenty or thirty healthy years. Or it might turn out that you'll need him (or someone, anyway) to be a caregiver---good health, as you know, can change overnight, for a woman as well as a man.

If you haven't already, I think you should tell your gentleman friend what your fears are. It may or may not make him feel differently about you, but he has the right to know if you're reluctant to take on a caregiver role. It's possible that he may even welcome the conversation; since he's a widower himself he's no stranger to illness and death, and he may surprise you with his insights.

It's also possible, of course, that he could end the relationship and look for someone else. If it happens, it happens, but if this particular relationship doesn't lead to marriage it doesn't necessarily mean you're destined to be alone. It might only mean that---for now, at least---you might be more comfortable with men who are not so determined to remarry. Believe me: there are plenty of non-marriage-minded men out there, and one of them might offer you all that you're looking for.

Good luck, Sally, and please let me know what happens.

Is She a "Horrible Person" for Wanting Sex?

2010-06-21T15:21:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I'm 58 and my husband is 67. We retired to Florida two years ago, and we were barely settled in our new home when he had a massive stroke. He can't talk intelligibly, and probably never will. He also can't walk without assistance, or feed himself, or do much of anything on his own. Sex, obviously, is out of the question. I have an aide who comes in five days a week, but otherwise I'm pretty much a full-time caregiver. I feel terrible for saying this, but I can't accept the fact that my sex life is over. We used to have a good sex life, and it's a torture to have to be celibate, on top of all the other issues I have to deal with. I'm not going to abandon my husband no matter what, but all I can think about is finding someone I can be with once in a while and feel like a woman again. Am I a horrible person? Help! ("No Name" in Southwest Florida)

DEAR "NO NAME": No, you're not a horrible person. You're a conflicted person, an honest person, and---I would think---a normal person.

I'm not necessarily saying that you should go out and find someone for sex and comfort, but I am saying that your motivation is significantly different from the motivations that usually drive people to have extramarital sex. Most of the time, affairs are an escape from problems that could still be worked on and improved within a marriage. One of the many reasons I advise against affairs is that they usually solve none of those problems and, in fact, they create new problems within the marriage---especially if the affair is discovered.

In your case, though, the problems you're having are impossible to resolve merely by working on them. It's no one's fault, but the reality is that you and your husband are never going to be able to have the kind of life you used to have. There's no single right-or-wrong way to deal with your situation, but you might want to keep a few thoughts in mind:

If you're a strongly religious person and/or have always believed in monogamy, you may never forgive yourself if you have sex with someone else.
If you have sex with someone and it blossoms into a true relationship, you may become tortured with indecision. You may not be satisfied with just seeing him for a couple of hours every week or two. Could you handle those complications?
On the other hand, if you don't have sex with someone else, are you likely to start resenting your husband? In fact, in your heart of hearts, are you resenting him already? (And if the answer is yes, don't beat yourself up over it; it's normal for caregivers to feel a degree of resentment, sometimes a big degree).

I think you might profit from seeing a counselor or therapist who has experience in dealing with caregiver issues (my guess is that it's a common situation in places like Florida). There may also be caregiver support groups in your area that would allow you to speak frankly to people who can personally relate to what you're going through. You'll be making a decision that you should not make lightly, so think hard about it before you place an ad on craigslist or start flirting with some guy in the supermarket.

Good luck, "No Name", and please let me know what happens.

His Business is His Entire Life

2010-06-10T09:18:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I've been married four years and don't have any kids, which is a good thing because my husband would probably never see them if we did. He's the owner of a convenience store that's open from 5:00AM to 11:00PM. Until the recession hit hard a couple of years ago, he'd open the store in the morning and work until about 5:00PM, at which point his assistant manager would take over for the rest of the day. The assistant manager would also be in charge on weekends, although my husband would usually go in for a few hours on Saturday. Now, with business slow, he's had to let the assistant manager go. His only help are a couple of part-time workers who work mainly in the afternoons, allowing my husband to come home for a quick nap before he goes back to the store. Because I work an 8 to 5 office job, I hardly ever see him. I've thought about quitting my job and going to work at the store, but I hate the thought of giving up a secure position, and I'm not sure what it would be like to go from never seeing him to being with him 24/7. I suppose I could work some nights at the store, but I'm tired when I get home. I really don't want a second job, I want a normal married life. Is there any hope? ("Karyn" in Minnesota)

DEAR KARYN: Being a small business owner has never been an easy life, either for the owner or his family, and things are even tougher now. From my observation, the most succesful small retail businesses are the ones in which the entire family---husband, wife, teenage kids, maybe a nephew or niece as well---pitches in, which tends to keep labor costs lower and reduces or eliminates the possibility of employee theft and other problems.

However, not every family, or every couple, is suited to working together. As you point out, there can definitely be such a thing as too much togetherness in a marriage. This is especially true when one spouse thinks of the business as his, and doesn't take well to constructive criticism or even well-meaning suggestions. My guess is that, after four years or more of running the place, your husband has his own ideas about what should or shouldn't be done.

Beyond that, if you were to give up a job with a steady paycheck you'd probably resent your husband and the business itself if you couldn't come close to matching your previous earnings.

It's not going to be easy, Karyn, but you've got to somehow find a time when the two of you can be together for a few hours and start talking about this. You need to stress to him that you appreciate all the hard work he's doing, but that your marriage---and possibly his health---will be jeopardized if this keeps up much longer.

You'll want to take the initiative in coming up with possible solutions, because your husband---like most small business owners---is doing things the only way he knows how. You might want to suggest that the store be open shorter hours; maybe the sales after 8:00PM or before 7:00AM don't justify keeping the place open, or maybe the store could be closed entirely on Sundays. You might also want to suggest that the part-time people work a few extra hours in the early evening, so the two of you could at least have dinner together most nights.

As I said, he may resist these and other suggestions you might make. But if he does, then press him to come up with better ones. The key is to let him know on no uncertain terms that the present arrangement just isn't working out, certainly not for you and for the marriage, and probably not for him, either (unless he's using the job as an excuse to avoid you, which is a whole other issue).

Good luck, Karyn, and please let me know what happens.

An Important Message for People Suffering from OCD

2010-05-27T21:06:00.000-07:00

(NOTE TO READERS: I received the following e-mail from Elizabeth Persons, MPH, of Columbia University, in response to the previous (May 26, 2010) blog Q&A about a person with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). If you or someone you know might be a candidate for the study Ms. Persons describes, please contact her as soon as possible).

Dear Jim,

Thank you for your recent post about how a girlfriend's OCD symptoms are putting a strain on her romantic relationship. Many of us have routines or even eccentric superstitions that get us through the day; we read our horoscopes every morning, keep our calendars clean and up-to-date, or pray each night. But for the 2.2 million American adults suffering from OCD, unceasing thoughts and compulsions can get in the way of living. These symptoms of OCD are not mere habits but persistent, distressing and, at times, debilitating impediments.

In an effort to better understand this common disorder, the National Institute of Mental Health is sponsoring a study to examine possible genetic contributions to OCD. Five research institutions in cities across the country – in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York – are looking for participants who have been diagnosed with OCD or exhibit symptoms such as obsessions, compulsions or hoarding that could lead to a diagnosis. The study involves a 2-3 hour interview with the participant about their mental health. We also ask that the participant and their family members (parents or siblings) provide a blood or saliva sample for DNA. Participants are compensated $75 for their interview and DNA sample, and each family member receives $35 for their DNA sample. Participants and their family members may participate from home or at one of the study centers.

If you think your readers would be interested in helping us gain a deeper understanding of OCD, we would greatly appreciate it if you could publish this letter or our study information for them to view. Readers who would like to participate in the study may contact Columbia University research staff at 212-543-5364 or e-mail CUOCGAS@gmail.com
Sincerely,

OCD Collaborative Genetic Association Study
Columbia University

Elizabeth Persons, MPH
Research Worker
Columbia University/NYSPI
(212) 543-5377
persons@pi.cpmc.columbia.edu

Girlfriend's Obsessive-Compulsive Behavior is Threatening Their Relationship

2010-05-26T10:12:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I'm going out with a wonderful and accomplished woman---she's a professor at a well-known university---who has one habit that absolutely drives me crazy. Whenever we go out somewhere, she invariably becomes panicked a few minutes later that she left the back door of her house unlocked, or that she didn't turn off the burners on the stove, or some other situation that requires us to turn around, go back to her house, and verify that things are OK. This has happened at least ten times over the three months we've been going out, and not once has the problem she was worrying about been true. Because of this, we've been late to movies, concerts, and restaurants, and beyond that it's just tiring having to deal with this. I've suggested she see a psychologist, but she insists that she's just being careful, and that several times in the past (before I knew her) she did actually leave a door unlocked, or whatever. Any thoughts? ("Going Nuts" in the Midwest)

DEAR GOING NUTS: I'm not a psychologist, but your girlfriend's behavior certainly sounds like some form of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). From what I understand, OCD is not something that resolves itself on its own, especially when the person feels it's a rational response to a potentially-dangerous situation that could happen or---as you say---has happened.

I agree with you that she would profit from seeing a psychologist, particularly one who specializes in OCD. (And because OCD is relatively common, it shouldn't be that hard to find one). Because she's resisted the idea so far, you might want to soft-pedal your suggestions so she doesn't feel you're trying to run her life, especially given that your relationship is still relatively new. Perhaps you could show her articles from the Internet about OCD, especially if they describe symptoms similar to hers.

If she still resists seeking treatment, you may need to go through a checklist approach every time the two of you leave her house: doors locked, windows closed, stove off, coffee maker unplugged, etc. My guess is she may still think of something that wasn't on the list, but it's worth a try, anyway.

I suppose you could also put your foot down and simply say "No; we're already late and we're not going back to the house." But that's a calculated risk. It might turn out OK, but then again it might only increase her sense of anxiety and lead to a calamitous evening---and possibly even to the end of your relationship. Because of that risk, I feel the psychologist approach is the best one.

Good luck, and please let me know what happens.

Can Dating Sites Really Predict Compatibility?

2010-05-20T12:56:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please submit any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I read your article in this month's Connections [www.connectionsforwomen.com] about all the different dating sites out there, and how the sites that do "compatibility" matching, like eHarmony.com, have disproportionately high rates of women members. It got me wondering: do you think that it's really possible to test for, and accurately predict, compatibility? (Naomi in Boston)

DEAR NAOMI: I'm sure the people at eHarmony would insist that it is possible to devise tests that accurately predict compatibility, but I have my doubts.

For one thing, no one on eHarmony or any other site verifies the truth of a person's answers to their compatibility questionnaires. Some people are clueless about themselves, their motivations, and their goals in life. They may honestly answer a question one way, but the answer they give may bear no relation to reality. Other people will deliberately lie or distort the truth. If they decide that the "right" way to answer the questions is to come across as warm, open, affectionate, and people-centered, they'll answer that way, regardless of what they really feel. The end justifies the means, in their mind.

Another problem is that the same word or concept can mean totally different things to different people. One person may think he has a great sense of humor because he laughs so hard at his own jokes that he amost falls off his chair. Another person appreciate wit, but only when it's subtle, and would cringe at the thought of being out in public with the joke-teller.

Even if everyone could agree on the definitions and answer the questions one hundred percent honestly, the only prediction anyone could confidently make about two people is that they match up well on paper. They both want kids. They both love animals. They both watch reality TV shows. They both believe in sharing household chores. OK, fine; that's a start. But that's all it is. Interests, attitudes, and goals may be important, but they don't automatically guarantee chemistry. And without chemistry, all the "on paper" compatibility in the world is meaningless. This is why I urge people who are doing online dating to actually meet the other person as soon as it's clear there's a strong interest. You can learn more about someone in five minutes face-to-face than you could in five weeks, or five months, of e-mail exchanges.

I'm not necessarily trying to discourage you, Naomi, from joining eHarmony or any other "compatibility" site, but I think you should take their claims with a grain of salt. On the other hand, as I pointed out in the Connections article, any man who will fill out a 200-question form and pay $60 or $70 a month to belong to a dating site, is probably serious about forming a real relationship with someone, even if he may be fudging the answers a bit.

Good luck, Naomi, and please let me know if you meet someone good!

Why Won't Her Boyfriend Introduce Her to His Kids?

2010-05-11T15:57:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I'm 35 and have never been married. For the past seven months I've been dating a slightly older guy who is divorced and has two daughters, 9 and 11, who live with his ex-wife about a hundred miles away. His divorce decree allows him to see his girls every weekend. For as long as I've known him, he's driven to a halfway point early on Saturday morning, where his ex-wife meets him and drops off the girls. He then drives them back to his home where they stay until mid-afternoon on Sunday, when he and his ex do the drop-off in reverse. I've never actually met the girls. I'd love to meet them, but he always says something about how they're not ready yet to accept a new woman in his life. I love the fact that he's a good father, and I know that kids can resist the idea of their parents seeing new people, but I'm troubled that he won't take even small steps to introduce me to his girls. Is this normal behavior for divorced fathers? ("Ana" in California)

DEAR ANA: Well, I'd say it's normal behavior for a man who's uncomfortable about something.

If the two of you have been seeing each other for seven months (and I'm going to assume it's an exclusive relationship), your boyfriend ought to be comfortable enough by now to let his daughters know that there's a woman in his life. He doesn't have to overdo it. You don't have to spend every minute of the weekend with him and the girls. You don't even have to spend the night; in fact, it might be advisable not to spend the night until the girls have completely bonded with you, which could take many months.

But the process has to start somewhere. One weekend, you could all go out to lunch on Saturday. The next weekend, it could be Saturday and Sunday---as you say, small steps. But until some steps are taken, I think I'd be careful about becoming over-invested in this man. Something is causing him to hold back. I have no idea what it is, but I've seen situations where divorced husbands (or divorced wives) are holding out hope that they can get back together with their ex. I've also seen situations where divorced people didn't feel committed enough in their new relationship to "go public" with it, at least with respect to their kids or other family members; or situations where divorced people are worried that the kids will somehow cause trouble by telling the ex everything after they return home from a weekend visit.

Whatever your boyfriend's motivation may be, his reluctance to let you meet his daughters is something of a red flag. I think you need to explain your concerns to him, fully and frankly. If you don't get a satisfactory answer, you should think about putting this relationship on the back burner until he's resolved whatever issues he seems to be struggling with.

Good luck, Ana, and please let me know what happens.

A Happy Ending

2010-05-01T14:23:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I just wanted to tell you that I was worried for nothing [see previous blog entry, dated April 27, 2010]. While my husband was on his business trip, I received a beautiful floral arrangement from "Flowers by Gina." It was my birthday yesterday, and my husband wanted to be sure I'd get the flowers on time. We went out for a wonderful birthday dinner last night, and I never mentioned that I had found the post-it note [with Gina's name and phone number on it]. Thanks for helping me to be stay calm. ("M" in Canada)

DEAR "M": You're welcome; I'm glad at least some of these stories have a happy ending.

There's no question that people can worry themselves sick over something that, out of context, looks suspicious, but which later proves to be innocent. If there is an affair going on, there will usually be a pattern of suspicious behavior, rather than a single unexplained incident. I'm not saying a person should wait forever before confronting his or her spouse, but a premature confrontation can cause serious resentment on the part of an innocent spouse. It can also be a tip-off to a guilty spouse that he's not being careful enough in hiding the tracks of his affair. It's always better to wait until the evidence is strong and a pattern has emerged.

The Telltale Post-it Note?

2010-04-27T16:24:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I've been upset all day. I drove my husband to the airport this morning---he left on a business trip and won't be back for three days. I took his car, because mine needed gas and we were in a rush. When I got home, I noticed a folded-up post-it note on the floor near the driver's seat. I opened it and saw, in my husband's handwriting, the name "Gina", along with a phone number. Jim, I don't know anyone named Gina and I've never heard my husband mention anyone by that name. I did a google search on the phone number but nothing came up. I know, though, that there are sites that, for a fee, will tell you who has a particular phone number. Should I find out whose number it is, or should I just call it and see if it's a business number? Or should I call my husband tonight and ask him to explain? We've been married ten years and I've never had suspicions about anything before, but this is really bothering me. ("M" in Canada)

DEAR "M": I know you're dying to get answers right away, but I think you should wait until your husband gets home before doing anything. For one thing, you need to calm down. If you were to call your husband tonight, your stress might get the better of you. There's a chance you would start accusing him of something that he didn't do, and that never goes well. Beyond that, if you disclose your "evidence" over the phone, you'll never get to see how your husband reacts. Yes, you'll hear his voice, but you won't get to see his eyes, his facial expressions, or his body language---all of which can tell you a lot about whether he's lying to you or telling the truth.

And I wouldn't, at this point, play private detective. Before you know it, you'll be obsessed with finding out everything about "Gina": where she lives, where she works, what she looks like, how old she is, how she knows your husband. If your husband's explanation is clearly evasive or just doesn't add up, you can start doing some digging, but it seems premature right now, especially given that there has been no pattern of suspicious behavior on your husband's part.

For all you know, "Gina" could be a hairdresser, a personal trainer, a business contact, or some other person your husband had a legitimate reason to call. Of course, she could also be someone your husband is seeing on the side. But don't jump to conclusions based on the tiny bit of evidence you have.

Good luck, "M", and please let me know what happens.

Why Was I So Tough on the Husband?

2010-04-17T16:45:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I think you were too hard on the guy who spent the lottery money [see prior posting, April 12, 2010]. If you can't blow your money on the lottery, what can you blow your money on? The guy's wife is no worse off now than before he bought the lottery ticket---except in her head. ("Ralph" in L.A.)

DEAR RALPH: I would agree with you if the guy had won, say, $500 and blew it the same day on something without telling his wife in advance. I play these lottery games myself, and I know what a rush you get when you win even a modest prize. It is fun to spend it. But the guy won $200,000. From what his wife said, they'll probably never see that kind of money, or anything close to it, ever again. I think the husband had both the moral and the legal obligation to consult his wife before spending the money.

Technically, you're correct that the wife is no worse off financially than she would be if he hadn't bought the ticket. But that's like saying that if someone gave you an expensive watch or piece of jewelry, and then you lost it, you shouldn't feel bad because you're no worse off than before you received it as a gift. It ignores the human aspect of it, which in the wife's case is her knowledge that her husband didn't care enough about their future financial security to even consult her before he spent the money.

I appreciate your comments, Ralph. Feel free to disagree with me anytime you'd like; it keeps me on my toes!

Her Husband is Blowing the Lottery Winnings!

2010-04-12T17:26:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: About six months ago, my husband won $200,000 in a state lottery game. What's my problem? He's blowing it like a drunken sailor! He dropped $55,000 on a new Corvette, then took a couple of his buddies to Vegas to see a big boxing match, then gave $25,000 to each of his three adult kids (we were both married before). With all the taxes that were taken out, there's basically nothing left. I've been fuming over this, because it's not like we're made of money. We're not getting any younger, either, and we could have used the $200,000 to supplement our retirement funds. My husband says he has the right to do whatever he wants because he's the one who bought the lottery ticket. Am I right to be mad? ("Mrs. X")

DEAR Mrs. X: Yes, you do have a right to be mad.

The fact that he was the one who bought the lottery ticket is legally irrelevant; the money belongs (or belonged) to both of you. That's true automatically in states that are "community property" states, and in most other states it's standard practice to treat lottery winnings as money to be "equitably divided" in the event of divorce---usually meaning fifty-fifty.

So, legally, half the money he blew was your money. As a practical matter, though, there's not much you can do about it at this point unless you were to file for divorce. In that case, a judge might order your husband to reimburse you for your share of the winnings (maybe to be paid out of his retirement funds). Short of filing for divorce, you should at least insist that the Corvette be sold. Even though it's probably already worth considerably less than your husband paid for it, it's a constant reminder of your husband's selfishness. It might be worth getting what you can for it rather than to have to see the thing in the garage every day of your life.

Whatever you wind up doing, do it soon. You don't want this to be a festering wound for the next ten or twenty years. You need to explain to your husband that, legally, he's wrong, but you also need to explain to him that it's not just a legal issue. If your husband's attitude is that he can do what he damn well pleases, without considering your needs or your feelings, he needs to know that your marriage may be on very shaky ground.

You should, though, try to control your temper when you bring up these matters. Letting your anger get the best of you will just invite retaliation. (I'm sure there are things that you've spent money on over the years that he could throw back in your face). If the two of you can't have a rational discussion, you may want to bring in outside help in the form of a marriage counselor.

Good luck, "Mrs. X", and please let me know what happens.

Are Unmarried Men Over 40 All Losers?

2010-03-30T10:47:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please submit any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I'm 42 and have never been married. I had the chance to when I was a lot younger, but I thought I was too young. Maybe I shouldn't have waited, because it seems like every unmarried guy in the age range I'm looking for (40 to about 50) is a loser of one sort or another. If the guy has never been married, he's either got commitment issues, or he's lacking in social skills, or he drinks too much or has some other unattractive qualities. If he's divorced, he's either angry at women or so desperate to find a new one that he wants to hook up before he even knows you. The really good men I know are all married, and I'm beginning to think that I'd be better off having a part-time relationship with a married man than a full-time relationship with a single one. Am I wrong? ("Lynne" in Las Cruces, New Mexico)

DEAR LYNNE: I certainly sympathize with you, and I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I think you're wrong that a married man is the answer to your problem.

Yes, in general the best men over forty are married. But not every married man is a good one. Some are worse than unmarried men; the only reason they're still married is that their wives are, for various reasons, not willing (yet) to divorce them. And a married man who is looking for an affair wouldn't seem to fit the definition of a good man.

I'd rather see you look harder for an unmarried man who's right for you---and I have to believe he's out there. You could start by going where the men go. Living in New Mexico, you have access to a wealth of outdoor activities. There are singles groups---often with more men than women members---devoted to hiking, biking, rock-climbing, skiing, softball, and just about every other athletic pursuit you could imagine. If sports are not your thing, I'm sure there are music festivals, wine-tastings, street fairs, and other events nearby that bring out plenty of singles in the age group you're talking about. Getting involved in political, conservation, or social-action groups is a great way to meet passionate, like-minded men, some of whom are going to be single.

If you're into online dating, you should consider e-harmony.com. Even though they have more women than men in their membership (about a 60-40 ratio), the men who are members tend to be serious about forming "real" relationships. Unlike the men who post free ads on craigslist or join free sites like plentyoffish.com (where men greatly outnumber women), men who are willing to pay a substantial monthly fee and answer a lengthy compatibility questionnaire know what they're looking for and are willing to go the extra mile for it. (By the way, I have no financial interest whatsoever in e-harmony or any other dating site).

Good luck, Lynne, and let me know what happens.

"Sudden Divorce Syndrome" Strikes Again!

2010-03-19T10:23:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: After twenty-four years of marriage and two kids (who are both in college now), my wife moved out a month ago and filed for divorce. There is no other person in the picture (for either of us). We had never been separated before, and we never really had any big arguments. All my wife will say is that she's tired of talking to the wall, but I don't know what she means. When I ask her what the problem is, she just says "Everything." I've offered to go to marriage counseling, but she says it's too late. I don't want to get divorced, but her lawyer is sending me all kinds of papers I've got to respond to, and it looks like I've got to get my own lawyer. Is there anything I can do to stop the divorce long enough to try to work things out? ("Rob" in Phoenix)

DEAR ROB: You're describing a situation that, unfortunately, is a fairly common one. In fact, it's so common that lawyers and marriage counselors have given it a name: Sudden Divorce Syndrome.

About seventy-five percent of divorces are filed by women, and in many cases the husband feels---like you---that he was blindsided. But the woman typically feels that her husband was simply not paying attention for a long time to her and her needs. Women who are unhappy in their marriages tend to think long and hard before they do something drastic, but once they make up their minds that the marriage is over they take decisive action.

Legally, you can't stop the divorce. Under Arizona's no-fault laws (which are similar to no-fault laws in most other states), all it takes is one spouse to say that the marriage is "irretrievably broken", and the court has to grant the divorce. You should definintely get your own lawyer because the court is not going to go out of its way to educate you on the law or protect your rights.

But you should also keep letting your wife know that you're more than willing to try to understand her frustrations and to make whatever changes are necessary in your behavior and your attitudes. I'm not necessarily saying that your wife is right and you're wrong, but there must be something that she feels is a major problem in your marriage. You don't want to start harrassing her about it, but if you're persistent in a sincere and respectful way, she may open up to you and perhaps even agree to put the divorce on the back burner until the two of you can attempt marriage counseling.

If not, you might want to consider getting counseling for yourself, both to help you get through the divorce and to help you adjust to life after divorce. Understandably, a lot of the men who feel they were blindsided by their wives develop a bitterness and a mistrust of women that can poison future relationships. That's the last thing you need.

Good luck, Rob, and let me know how it turns out.

Is the Coupon Queen Going Overboard?

2010-03-12T12:52:00.000-08:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: My wife and I are in our thirties and have two pre-school kids. My wife is a stay-at-home mom, which is what we both wanted. (My income, fortunately, is enough to support all of us). I feel a little guilty writing to you about my wife, because she's a wonderful wife and mother, but over the past year or so she's really gone overboard, I think, with using coupons to buy things for next to nothing. I appreciate the fact that she's saving us money, but our home is starting to look like a warehouse. What used to be our guest room is now packed almost to the ceiling with napkins, paper towels, and toilet paper. I'm afraid to open a closet door for fear that some cereal boxes will come crashing down. As I say, I hate to complain because my wife's intentions are good and in the long run she's saving us money, but I'm starting to worry about her. Is there a way I can get her to stop, or least slow down, without sounding like I'm criticizing her? ("Scott" in Tennessee)

DEAR SCOTT: In the interest of full disclosure, let me confess that I tend to go a little overboard myself when it comes to sales and coupons. We probably have a two year supply of tooth paste, dental floss, liquid hand soap, and other health and beauty aid products. Fortunately, our house has a lot of storage space, and I'm careful not to buy too many perishables, or products with a short shelf life.

So, I'm sympathetic to your wife. She's undoubtedly motivated, at least in part, by a desire to contribute more to your family's financial well-being. Even though, as you say, you're happy with the job she's doing as a stay-at-home mom, she may feel she needs to do more. She probably had a job outside the home before the kids came along, and she may feel guilty that she's not generating any income these days. To compensate, she's saving money. If she can save fifty or a hundred dollars a week, or even more, by buying things on sale and using coupons, it's like having a part-time job. As long as she's not charging everything to a high-interest credit card that you're only making the minimum payments on, or buying so much frozen food that you have to buy a second freezer just to store it, she is undeniably helping out the family financially.

But there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. Many years ago the psychologist, William Glasser, coined the term "positive addictions" to refer to activities that were fundamentally positive ones, but which, if overdone, could become negatives (such as a person who takes up running to lose weight, and then runs far too many miles each day and winds up needing knee surgery).

My guess is that coupon-clipping has become a positive addiction for your wife. I'm not necessarily saying she needs psychological help, but addictions---even positive ones---should at least be closely monitored and kept from becoming harmful. You want to be sure that your wife's sense of self-worth isn't tied too closely to her ability to keep getting incredible savings each week, because then she'll never be able stop or even slow down.

Because your living space has already been affected by your wife's shopping, it shouldn't be too hard to suggest to her that she take a breather for a while. You want to be careful not to criticize her; in fact, you'll want to stress how grateful you are that she's saved all of you so much money. You might want to suggest that you "spend down" your supplies until you're down to, say, six months' worth of non-perishable food and twelve months' worth of paper goods and other non-food items. That way, you'll gradually get your house back to normal---or something close to normal---and still let her have fun saving money when it's time to re-stock.

Good luck, Scott, and let me know what happens.

Why Don't "Sexy" Women Want Sex?

2010-03-05T10:36:00.000-08:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I'm 48 and have been divorced a little less than a year. I've been using online dating sites for the past six months, and I'm getting frustrated with women who say in their profile that they're "sexy" or "sensual", but when you meet them are not really interested in having sex. Do all women like to use sex as a kind of bait-and-switch tactic? ("Alan" in Washington, DC)

DEAR ALAN: I suppose there will always be a certain percentage of women who use sex as a come-on and a tease, but my guess is that you're dealing with something different. The vast majority of women in their thirties, forties, and beyond do enjoy sex but they only want to have it with a man they feel a genuine connection with. It's a rare woman who will have sex on a first date, even if the man is interesting and attractive. Most women need to know a man better, need to trust him and be comfortable with him, before they'll go to bed with him. Even a woman with a high sex drive is going to wait until the time seems right.

It could be that you're trying too hard. If, when you go out with a woman for the first time, you're constantly hinting that you'd love to sleep with her, she's going to pull back. She probably knows, instinctively, that a relationship based primarily on sex is not likely to be a long-lasting one. And if you make uninvited sexual suggestions in your initial online messages, there probably won't even be a first date.

My advice is to be more relaxed and less goal-driven. Don't go on a first date with the mentality that either the two of you are going to have sex that night or the date was a failure. Let things evolve naturally. If you're genuinely attracted to her and want to see her again, you can let her know that in a subtle way. Don't drool over her or keep glacing down at her breasts. Compliment her, but don't go overboard with the compliments. Let her know you're interested in seeing her again, but don't appear desperate or pushy. In fact, when it comes to sex, the harder you push, the less likely it is you'll get it.

Good luck, Alan, and please let me know what happens.

Should She Confess Her Bisexual History?

2010-02-17T09:35:00.000-08:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I'm 34 and will be getting married this coming October. "Scott" and I have been with each other for four years and we've told each other about our previous lovers---not all the details necessarily, but who they were in a general sense---and it hasn't been upsetting to either of us. However, I haven't told Scott about a gay female roommate I had in college. She made no secret of the fact that she found me attractive, and I found her attractive, too. For a few months we were lovers. She graduated before I did and I haven't seen her since, nor have I had a sexual relationship with any other women. I do enjoy looking at women's bodies, but I have no desire to ever go beyond that again. My question is, should I tell Scott, or would that be just asking for trouble? ("Nicole" in the Pacific Northwest)

DEAR NICOLE: I don't always recommend full disclosure about prior sexual partners. A while back [8/11/09], I advised a woman who had had a one-week affair not to confess the affair to her husband. I felt that a confession was unnecessary, partly because there was virtually no chance the husband would ever find out otherwise. (The woman met her lover at an out-of-town conference; no one other than her lover knows about the affair, and he's also married and lives halfway across the country). More importantly, a confession would almost certainly have hurt her husband and jeopardized her marriage. Whatever relief she might have felt from coming clean would have been temporary, whereas the repercussions could have been long-term.

In your case, though, I think you should tell Scott. Unlike the situation with the woman who had the short-term affair, there is a chance that Scott might find out inadvertently about your bisexual past. My guess is that most of your friends from college knew about it when it was going on, and in this Facebook age you never know who might post something that could find its way to Scott. And the woman herself may pop up again in some fashion. Obviously, you don't owe Scott any apologies for what you did before you met him, but you have given him the impression that you've told him at least something about all your prior sexual partners.

Chances are, though, Scott won't be bothered by any information you give him. For one thing, he wasn't bothered by your disclosures about your male lovers. Yes, this is different, but, unless a man's girlfriend or wife is about to leave him for another woman, he's usually not disturbed by her bisexual fantasies or prior bisexual relationships. In fact, a lot of men are turned on by the thought of their wife and another woman. Scott may see your story as evidence that you're a woman with a strong sex drive in general, and most men would see that as a positive. (And if Scott is threatened by your sex drive, you're better off learning that now than after you're married).

However, I think that, before you tell Scott, you might want to seek some counseling from a therapist with experience in sexual identity issues. I've seen enough cases of married people---male and female---who have suppressed their sexual identities for many years, and then leave their spouses for another man or another woman. And those cases are usually a tragedy for everyone involved. Even if you've already resolved any sexual orientation issues you might have had, an experienced therapist may help you come up with the best way to tell your story to Scott.

Good luck Nicole, and please let me know what happens.

Getting Her Boyfriend's Eyes Off the Computer Screen

2010-02-10T13:04:00.000-08:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: My boyfriend and I have been living together for six months. He's a wonderful guy but he has one habit that annoys me: he often doesn't look at me when I speak to him. He'll be working on the computer or watching TV, and he'll answer me without looking up from what he's doing. I'm not bothering him just for the sake of bothering him. I'm usually asking him something that I need to know right then, such as when he would like dinner to be ready, or, if I'm on my way out to the store, if there's anything he needs. I hate to make a big deal out of it, but sometimes I feel invisible. ("Rachel" in Virginia)

DEAR RACHEL: You have a right to feel annoyed. Your boyfriend may not be aware that he's being rude, but he is. When two people are sharing a home---or sharing any space, really---each person has the obligation to acknowledge the other person's presence. In my opinion, answering questions without looking up from the TV or computer is insulting. It's as if he's saying that you're not as important at that moment as what he's looking at on the screen.

The fact that he's not trying to be insulting is an explanation, but not an excuse. It's a bad habit that will get only worse if it's not broken.

I suggest that the next time it happens, you say to him something like, "If this isn't a good time to talk, you can come and see me when you're done with what you're doing." Say it it a calm tone of voice, without any sarcasm. Chances are, he'll be a bit confused: "What do you mean? I can talk now." This gives you the chance to say, "Well, when I see you so engrossed in something you're looking at, I figured that was the most important thing for you right now. I'd appreciate it if you would just look up at me if you really want to talk."

It may take a while before your boyfriend completely breaks the habit, but if you're consistent in not allowing yourself to be invisible, and he understands why this isn't a trivial matter, I think it should work. Good luck, Sarah, and let me know what happens.

Why is Husband "Overtipping" the Waitress?

2010-02-02T14:32:00.000-08:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I'm 36, my husband is 40, and we have two daughters, 12 and 9. The four of us go out twice a month to an Applebee's nearby, and we've been doing that for over a year. The past couple of months, I've noticed that when we have a particular waitress, "Kim", my husband gives her at least a 30% tip---once it was close to 50%---whereas he never tips anyone else more than 15 to 20 percent. Kim is nice, and always talks sweetly to the girls, but she's not that much better than anyone else there. I should mention that Kim is about 22 and extremely cute. I'm starting to feel that this is my husband's way of flirting with her. Am I right to feel annoyed? And is this how some guys try to soften women up for an affair? ("Maria" in Orlando)

DEAR MARIA: Yes, you're probably right about the "flirting-by-overtipping" behavior. But, to put it in perspective, probably ninety percent of men---including ninety percent of happily-married men---are guilty of it. And that's why it's a well-known fact in the restaurant business that the cuter the waitress (or bartender), the bigger the tips.

Unless you have seen signs that your husband is seeing Kim anywhere other than at the restaurant, or has been phoning, e-mailing, or texting her, I wouldn't be concerned that he's giving her big tips as a way of trying to seduce her. Your husband has undoubtedly noticed how cute Kim is, but he'd have to be a total fool to think that a 22 year old waitress is going to want to get involved with a forty year old married man who comes in with his wife and daughters. Trust me: Kim gets hit on by customers ten times a day, and a lot of them are single and closer to her age (and may tip a lot bigger than your husband does).

I think what often happens with any server is that once you give her (or him) a big tip, it becomes hard not to keep overtipping. If you've been giving someone thirty to forty percent, and then give twenty percent, the server will think something is wrong, even though twenty percent is a perfectly good tip in most restaurants. It's a vicious circle, and by definition vicious circles are hard to break.

Look at it this way: assuming your pre-tip check twice a month is $100.00 (which, for Applebee's, is probably on the high side), and assuming that Kim is the only waitress you ever have (which is apparently not the case), and assuming that the tip your husband gives her is $40.00 each time instead of $20.00, in an entire year the difference would come to $480.00 ($20.00 x 24). As I suggested, the actual amount may be quite a bit less. I'm not saying you couldn't find a more pressing use for that $480.00 (or whatever the amount may be), but if that's your husband's biggest financial indulgence, and there's no hint of any extracurricular conduct with Kim, I would consider it a relatively harmless one.

By the way, Maria, I didn't suggest one obvious "solution"---having you be the one who pays the check and thus decides what the tip will be---because your husband would probably take that as a blow to his ego, especially when he's well-known by the staff at a particular restaurant. You'd be risking too much for too little reward.

I'm not sure if this is what you wanted to hear, Maria, but I hope it helps. Good luck.

Is He Your Husband or Your Roommate?

2010-01-25T08:27:00.000-08:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: My husband and I are both 33 and we've been married a little over a year. Even though we're married, he insists on having separate bank accounts and separate credit cards---the way we did when we were living together. If he wants to buy something for himself, he pays for it out of his funds, and he wants me to do the same with my purchases. He pays the rent each month, but then I have to reimburse him for fifty percent of it from my chacking account. The same goes for groceries and other common expenses. I see this as unfair, because he makes nearly twice what I do. Do you agree? ("Jen" in San Antonio)

DEAR JEN: Yes, I do agree with you. Your husband's system may have made sense when you were living together, but it is not appropriate for a marriage, even if the two spouses are both earning the same amount. Separate checkbooks imply that there's no common financial bond betwen the spouses. If he wants to buy a new Corvette, he can just do it without consulting you, even if you're trying to save for a down payment on a house. The only question becomes whether "he" can afford it. To me, that's a sign of a lack of commitment to the marriage.

Beyond that, he needs to understand that half of the money he earns is yours (and half of the money you earn is his). Texas is what is called a community property state, which means that any money earned by either spouse during the marriage becomes the property of both spouses, 50-50. The only exceptions are funds received by one spouse or the other as an inheritance or as a gift.

You have to explain to your husband that the two of you are no longer just roomates or "friends with benefits." You're a married couple with (I would hope) common financial and life goals. That doesn't mean that he can't treat himself to a new set of golf clubs, or you can't enjoy some pampering at the day spa once in a while. But it does mean that your various purchases and indulgences should fit into a joint budget, and shouldn't be based solely on who earns what.

If your husband continues to be stubborn on this issue, I think you should explore marriage counseling; as I say, his attitude may reflect deeper issues that you should both address now, before they seriously threaten your marriage.

Good luck, Jen, and let me know what happens.

He Won't Tell Her Why He Broke Up With Her

2010-01-20T07:21:00.000-08:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I was dating a guy I met on a dating site for about three months, and I thought things were going great. But then all of a sudden he stopped calling and wouldn't return my calls or e-mails. He finally sent me a one-line e-mail that basically said he needed to take a break and think things over. That was it: no explanation whatsoever. We never had an argument, and I can't imagine what caused this. I saw yesterday that he's back on the site, and he says he's looking for something "long term." Well, he could have had something long term with me! At this point, I'm not trying to get him back, I just want to understand what went wrong. Maybe it will help me the next time. Am I stupid to keep contacting him? ("Marci" in Scottsdale, AZ)

DEAR MARCI: It's understandable that you want an explanation, but you're not going to get one from this guy no matter how hard you try. At best, he'd give you one of those "It's not you, it's me" lines just to get you off his back.

Sad to say, his behavior is pretty typical. Most guys hate having uncomfortable conversations with women, hate having to explain their actions and motivations, hate the feeling of being attacked. Most guys, after a breakup, just want it all to go away quickly and quietly. To put it bluntly, most guys are cowards in dealing with women.

So, Marci, you have to stop contacting him, and accept the reality that you're never going to get a full and satisfactory account of what caused him to bail out of the relationship. It might comfort you to know, though, that it almost certainly was him and not you. My educated guess is that, despite what he says about wanting a long-term relationship, he's uncomfortable with commitment. He likes the early stages of a relationship, but gets nervous when a woman seems to want more than casual dating. The closer a woman gets to him, the more he pulls back. Sooner or later, it was inevitable that your relationship with him would have ended.

But even though most men are cowards with respect to explaining why they broke off a relationship, not every man is afraid of commitment. There are definitely good men out there, but you'll never meet them until you stop obsessing about the last guy. Good luck, Marci, and let me know what happens.

Pulling the Plug Prematurely?

2010-01-06T16:31:00.000-08:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I disagree with the advice you gave the woman in Las Vegas whose husband was lying to her about all the money he was losing at the casinos [see December 23, 2009 blog Q&A]. In my opinion, lying is just as bad as having affairs. They're both a violation of trust. I wouldn't give him a second chance. By the time she does everything you tell her to do, he'll probably blow what little money they have left, and she'll wish she had divorced him while there was still some money left to divide. ("Deb" in North Carolina)

DEAR DEB: I appreciate your thoughts, and I agree with you that both lying and sexual infidelity involve serious breaches of trust. I also agree that there's no guarantee that the suggestions I offered will solve the problem quickly enough to avoid even more money being wasted.

But I think it's important to recognize that the husband's gambling and lying were recent developments. Until he was laid off, the husband was an excellent provider for his wife and kids, and there's no indication from his wife that there are other issues threatening the marriage. I think he's earned a chance to overcome his gambling addiction and any related psychological problems. But I definitely think he should be kept on a short leash; any future relapses and cover-ups should not be tolerated.

Divorce is not a step to be taken impulsively or in the heat of anger, especially when kids are involved. And divorces are expensive, no matter how much---or how little---money you may have. I think it's worth the risk of further financial losses to see how the situation evolves over the next two to three months. If the husband refuses to co-operate in overcoming his addiction, his wife will know it very quickly, and at that point I would encourage her to at least seek the advice of a divorce lawyer.

Gambling His Way to Self-Destruction

2009-12-23T14:10:00.000-08:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: My husband and I and our two kids (now 9 and 6) moved to Las Vegas in 2005 when things were booming, especially in the construction industry. Until early in 2008, he was making over $150,000 a year as a project manager for a big casino hotel that was going up, and I was adding to our income working occasional weekend shifts as an emergency room R.N. Then things came to a grinding halt. He got laid off from his job, found another one (at half the pay), and then got laid off from that job. He hasn't worked at all in 2009. I've increased my shifts at the hospital, but things are tight there too, and I can't get a full-time position. The worst part of all this is that I accidently learned recently that my husband hasn't been looking for work (as he claimed), but has been spending his time and what's left of our money at casinos. Instead of taking cash out of our bank account, where I would see any withdrawals, he liquidated his 401(k) account and opened a new bank account in his name to stash the 401(k) proceeds. In three months, he's blown through over half the 401(k) money, and what's left will probably have to go to taxes and penalties (if he hasn't gambled it away by April 15). I'm so angry with my husband I can barely stand to be in the same room with him. I really need some advice before I do something drastic. ("At Wit's End" in Henderson, Nevada).

DEAR "AT WIT'S END": Sometimes it takes a crisis to force people to admit there's a problem and to do something about it. If you and your husband can quickly get on the same page and come up with a step-by-step plan to address the multiple issues you're facing, there's still hope--- for your sanity, your marriage, and maybe even your finances.

The first thing that has to be addressed is your husband's gambling addiction. Although Las Vegas is about the worst place in the world for a gambling addict, at least there are plenty of Gamblers Anonymous-type programs there. Get him into one no later than next week and make sure he stays in it.

Unless your husband's gambling addiction pre-dated his job layoffs, his gambling may well be a symptom of depression. A guy like your husband, who was making a lot of money at something he was evidently very good at, will often become completely adrift if his job---his identity---is suddenly taken from him. He's undoubtedly anxious about his future in the construction industry, and fearful of being seen as a failure.

Most men, though, will not seek psychological help on their own, so if you think your husband may be depressed you'll have to gently but firmly get him to someone who can help.

Of course, you're not going to want to go out of your way to help him if you're angry at him, and believe me, you have reasons to be angry. He lied to you repeatedly, he did things behind your back, he jeopardized his family's financial future. But if you want to stay in your marriage---and at this point I think you should stay---you may need to get some counseling for yourself, apart from whatever help your husband gets. You may also want to consider marriage counseling, but I'd be cautious about overloading your husband and yourself with too many programs and counselors at the same time.

As for the purely financial issues, you're going to have to insist on taking complete control of the money that comes in and the money that goes out, at least until your husband has overcome the gambling addiction and dealt with the psychological problems underlying his addiction. No excuses, no exceptions, and zero tolerance for any further transgressions on your husband's part.

And with respect to money, I realize that the counseling I'm recommending will probably cost more than you feel you can afford, but I think it's worth it in the long run. Look at it this way: it's cheaper than a divorce!

I'm not qualified to give career advice, but once the current crisis is under control I think you and your husband should look hard at the career options you both have, and figure out whether Las Vegas is where you need to be. With your nursing degree and his construction industry expertise, your long-term prospects may be a lot better than you might think.

Good luck, and let me know what happens.

Don't Be So Modest, Girl!

2009-12-15T15:09:00.000-08:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I remember hearing you on a radio show a while back discussing online dating profiles. I think you said you didn't like it when someone says "My friends think I'm pretty", but I'm not sure why you think it's a bad idea. I'm in the process of writing my own profile for match.com, and I feel funny about saying something that might make me sound conceited (like "I'm a very pretty woman"). Can you explain what you meant? ("Lori" in Indiana)

DEAR LORI: You're right: I did say that I dislike the "My friends say I'm..." type of statement. The reason I dislike it is that it makes the person (usually a woman) sound as if she doesn't quite believe what she's saying. I think the average man reading such a statement would interpret it to mean something like: "My friends do say I'm pretty, even though I've never really thought so myself. But maybe I should say it just in case they're right."

I agree with you 100% that you want to avoid sounding conceited. But there's a difference between being conceited and being confident. Confidence implies that you know who you are and that you're comfortable with who you are, whereas to be conceited implies an exaggerated opinion of yourelf and an attitude that you're better than everyone else. If you honestly believe you're pretty (or smart, or funny, or whatever), it's perfectly OK to say so---simply and straightforwardly.

The underlying point here is that people---both men and women---respond positively to someone who is quietly confident. Confidence is a desired trait in relationships, because confident people tend to be less needy, less "clingy", and less likely to suppress the personality traits that make them unique. As I say, confident people know who they are. They know they have something good to bring into a relationship, and they're not going to settle for less than they deserve. The only people who typically don't want a confident partner are people who have a need to dominate and control their relationships. My guess is that you're not looking for someone to control you.

Good luck, Lori, and let me know what happens with your online dating search.

Unclear About "Transparency"

2009-12-09T12:11:00.000-08:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: My wife has read some articles about married couples who share an e-mail account, or at least give each other their passwords for their individual accounts. She thinks it's something we should do to prove to each other that we're not e-mailing people we shouldn't be e-mailing. I'm really uncomfortable with the idea, but I'm afraid if I object it will look like I've got something to hide. Your thoughts? ("Billy" in West Texas)

DEAR BILLY: Let me first ask you a few questions. Have you given your wife any reason to be suspicious of your e-mails, or of your Internet use in general? Has she heard you in the middle of the night using the computer? Has she seen you hurriedly close out of the website you're on when she enters the room? Has she inadvertently found out that you've been on porn or dating sites?

If the answer to these or similar questions is Yes, then what your wife is proposing is not unreasonable; you've given her cause for concern. If the answer is No, and if your behavior is not otherwise suspicious (e.g., secretive cell phone use; improbable explanations for coming home late; etc.), then I think you're right to be uncomfortable with the idea.

The articles your wife has been reading are discussing what is commonly called "transparency" in relationships. Advocates of transparency make the argument that e-mails and the Internet are breeding grounds for infidelity and sexual addiction, and it's hard to dispute that argument. Internet porn use is out of control, and it's no secret that a lot of married men (and a fair number of married women, too) are posing as single on dating sites, posting hookup ads on sites like craigslist, and surreptitiously e-mailing lovers or would-be lovers.

But I think that, in the absence of suspicious behavior, it's intrusive to ask your spouse to share an e-mail address or divulge passwords. There are, after all, "secrets" that are not at all threatening to the marital relationship. If I order a birthday present for my wife from on online merchant, I don't want her to see the e-mail saying "Your Order Has Been Shipped." If a woman is having a dispute with her sister or girlfriend about something, she may not want her husband to know all the little details. If a man and his ex-wife are e-mailing each other over their teenage daughter's pregnancy, he may be too upset to discuss the matter with his current wife until something has been decided.

The other problem with "transparency" is that if someone feels he's under surveillance, he may wind up doing the very thing the surveillance is designed to prevent: "If she thinks I'm having an affair, I may as well have one and enjoy it." He may not use the Internet to initiate the affair, but he'll find a way, just to assert his independence.

I think that if your conscience is clear in these matters, you should sit down with your wife and talk. Explain to her why you feel uncomfortable with her proposal, and emphasize that it's not just a question of whether or not you have something to hide. If I'm walking down the street, I would feel violated if some cop pulled me over and searched me for drugs, even if I had nothing on me. The marital relationship may not be the same as the relationship between the state and a citizen, but being married shouldn't mean forfeiting your right to have private communications if you so desire, as long as those communications don't undermine your marriage.

Good luck, Bobby, and let me know what happens.

Common Law Confusion

2009-12-01T14:53:00.000-08:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I'm 63 years old and living with a 71 year old man on a ranch he inherited from his parents many years ago. He was widowed ten years ago and we've been living together nearly eight years. He's not in great health (he has emphysema and diabetes). I hate to sound selfish or greedy, but I worry about what would happen if he passes away. A couple of friends have told me that after seven years of living together I'm considered his common law wife. Is that true? And does that mean I'd inherit the ranch if he dies before me? He has two daughters, if that matters. ("Joanie" in Nevada)

DEAR JOANIE: Common law marriage is a very misunderstood subject, but the bottom line in your case is that it doesn't apply to you or your relationship. There are only nine states that currently recognize common law marriages, and Nevada is not one of them. And even in those nine states, living together does not automatically grant the couple common law marriage status, no matter how long the cohabitation has lasted.

So if the man you're living with were to die, you would not automatically be entitled to a share of his estate, the way you would if the two of you were married to each other. You could still inherit the ranch, as well as any or all other property he may own at the time of his death, but only if he leaves a valid will naming you as his beneficiary. Without a will, his daughters would inherit everything.

I know it may be awkward to bring up these matters with him, but you've really got to. You've invested eight years of your life in a relationship that could---for no fault of yours---end suddenly, and you'd have nothing to show for it. Even if, for whatever reason, he doesn't want to get married, he should at least have a will, and so should you. It would cost very little to have an attorney draw up "reciprocal" wills---wills that are the mirror images of each other, and that leave everything to the person who dies first.

The truth is, even though he may be in poor health, life sometimes throws a curveball: he may outlive you. The fact that you'd be willing to leave everything you have to him if he's willing to do the same, should make it easier to discuss the issue without your looking selfish in any way.

Good luck, Joanie, and please let me know what happens.

The Perils of Dating a Separated Dad

2009-11-25T13:23:00.000-08:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I'm dating a guy who's been separated from his wife for eight months (she cheated on him and he was devastated by it and moved out). He's waiting for her to file for divorce, but she keeps delaying it. He's a great guy in a lot of ways, but his 14 year old daughter has him wrapped around her little finger. She calls him several times a day about one thing or another, and he always drops whatever he's doing to deal with her issues. Yesterday, we were having dinner at my house when she called. He went into the living room and talked to her for twenty minutes about some teacher she's having problems with. I've asked him to turn his phone off when we're together, but he says he'd feel guilty if his daughter couldn't reach him. I respect the fact that he's a good dad, but am I being unreasonable in wanting his undivided attention? ("Cindy" in Michigan)

DEAR CINDY: You're not being unreasonable, but you might be unrealistic about your chances of getting what you need from this relationship.

It sounds as if your boyfriend is conflicted about a lot of things. Let's start with his marriage. You say he's waiting for his wife to file for divorce, but what's stopping him from filing? Maybe he regrets leaving without trying to work things out, and is secretly hoping she'll come to her senses and beg him to return.

And let's look at the father-daughter relationship. I agree that she has him wrapped around her little finger, but maybe he wants that. Being available to her at all hours may be his way of assuaging his guilt about leaving the home.

And let's consider his own psyche. For whatever reason, his wife had sex with another man. Although a wife who has an affair is usually searching more for attention, affection, and respect than simply for better sex, the husband, when he finds out, is overwhelmed by feelings of sexual inadequacy. It can take a long time for a man to sort out all the feelings he has about his wife being with another man, and until he does he's not going to be emotionally available to a new woman. He may try to form a new relationship, but the new relationship is never going to work until he's at peace with the events of the past---and at peace with himself.

Unless you're willing to put up with uncertainty, drama, disrespectful behavior, and the very real chance of being dumped, you should get out of this relationship. Your boyfriend may indeed be a great guy, but right now he's not great for you.

Hounded by a Control Freak!

2009-11-19T10:13:00.000-08:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I'm 33 and have been married two years. My husband and I separated less than a month ago because all we did was fight. I'm not sure if I want to get back together, but right now I can't even think straight. My husband contacts me at least ten times a day begging me to take him back. He texts me, he e-mails me, he calls me at work, and he even calls my mother to tell her how much he misses me, and how he's afraid that he might do something to himself if the separation goes on much longer. Ironically, he barely spoke to my mother before the separation. He felt she hated him and was interfering in our marriage, which is simply not true. I don't want to be responsible if he does something crazy, but I don't want to be pressured into a bad decision, either. What should I do? ("Heather" in Georgia)

DEAR HEATHER: I'm tempted to tell you to cut your losses and just go to a divorce lawyer, but there may still be a chance that your marriage can become a satisfying one for both of you. In order to have any hope of success, though, you and your husband need to agree immediately on the "terms" of your separation. You need to agree on how often---and by what means---you'll communicate with each other. You need to agree that your husband should not be contacting your mother. You need to agree that the threats and the drama have got to stop.

And you also need to agree on what the purpose of the separation is. Do the two of you need time and space to reflect on what went wrong in your marriage and figure out what can be done to improve things? Do the two of you need to see what it's like to live without the other person? Do the two of you have a sense of how long this may take?

You're going to need a marriage counselor to help you with all this. In fact, you'll probably need to continue with counseling even if you decide to get back together. Your husband doesn't sound like the kind of person who can sit down with you and discuss things calmly---at least not in his current mental state. In fact, my suspicion is that he's a control freak, and that he's deliberately trying to pressure you into a hasty decision. By saying how much he misses you and how he can't live without you, he's trying to make you forget why you decided to separate in the first place. He's trying to create the impression that wanting you so badly is proof that he's changed. I very much doubt that he has.

What you need to stress to your husband is that you won't be pushed, pressured, or emotionally blackmailed, and that the more he engages in his tactics the less likely it will be that you'll get back together. You also need to stress to him that counseling is a requirement, not an option.

I hope things can be salvaged between you and your husband, but if they can't it's better that you find out sooner rather than later. The last thing you need is to go through an endless cycle of separation-reconciliation-separation. You're still young enough to start out again, if need be, without having suffered too much emotional damage.

Good luck, Heather, and let me know what happens.

Get Mom to a Lawyer!

2009-11-13T08:05:00.000-08:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: My mother is a widow in her early 70's. Dad died five years ago and, fortunately, left her in good shape financially. But recently, she's taken up with a guy in his 60's who my sister and I feel is a slippery character. He's vague about his background. He's supposedly a "long-time widower", with kids "out of state", and lives off his "investments", but he never says what those investments are or how he made his money in the first place. Google searches on him turn up next to nothing. My mother told us that they're planning to get married on Valentine's Day, and will be going on a Caribbean cruise for their honeymoon. Mom has already put a deposit down on the cruise using her credit card---his funds are supposedly "tied up." When we try to talk sense to her, she gets angry with us, and tells us we don't know what it's like to be lonely (my sister and I are both married). Is there anything we can do legally to keep my mother from making a big mistake? ("Sally" in Dallas)

DEAR SALLY: I agree with you this all smells fishy, but I doubt that a court would intervene at this point. Although every state has guardianship and "conservatorship" laws that can, in extreme cases, transfer some or all of a person's decision-making powers to a relative or other person, there has to be a clear-cut case of incapacity proven. Bad judgment isn't enough. Unless it's combined with seriously-diminished physical and/or mental capacity---which, at the very least, would require a doctor's written opinion---courts will usually stay away from cases like this.

However, that doesn't mean a lawyer can't help you and your mother. In fact, I strongly recommend that she immediately consult a lawyer who specializes in domestic relations law. The reason is that, assuming you can't persuade your mother not to go ahead with the wedding, she absolutely needs a pre-nuptial agreement.

In a properly-drafted "pre-nup", both parties would fully disclose their respective finances and personal information prior to the wedding. The lawyer your mother hires would represent only her. If the boyfriend wants to be represented by a lawyer, he'd have to get his own (and some states require both parties to a pre-nup to have separate representation). Your mother's lawyer's job would be to make sure that her boyfriend is coming clean about his income, assets, debts, marital history, and all other relevant facts. An experienced lawyer could quickly tell if someone is being evasive or dishonest, and he would advise your mother accordingly.

A domestic relations lawyer would probably also have access to investigative tools that go beyond simple google searches. He might be able to uncover information about the boyfriend that could convince your mother to break off the relationship without even getting to the pre-nup stage.

I know your mother seems to be headstrong about this, but it's quite possible that she might listen to an "outside" professional more readily than to you and your sister. A lot of older people are resentful of what they see as power plays by their children. They resist giving up authority of any kind to their children, and will do almost anything---including making bad decisions---to assert their independence. A lawyer wouldn't normally present the same kind of threat to your mother.

I hope this helps, Sally. Please let me know what happens.

Going Broke in the Dating World

2009-11-07T13:55:00.000-08:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I'm 46 years old and have been divorced a little over a year. I'm paying $950 a month in child support, and I'm still paying half the mortgage on the house my ex-wife and kids live in, plus the rent on my own apartment. I'm fortunate to have a decent job, but I have very little discretionary income at this point. I've met a few women through an online dating site, but every date I've gone on has been expensive and has lead to nothing. I hate to look cheap, but I can't afford to drop a hundred dollars or more on a first date with someone I may never see again. Is it OK to go Dutch on a date, or would it be the kiss of death to suggest it? ("Ron" in Connecticut)

DEAR RON: Before I answer your question, let me suggest an alternative. You don't have to spend a hundred dollars on a first date, regardless of who pays. In fact, even aside from the money involved, it's crazy to go to dinner at a nice restaurant with someone you barely know. If the chemistry isn't there, you'll both realize it before you've finished your first drink, and for the next hour or two you'll be making uncomfortable small talk while at the same time running up a substantial bill.

First dates should be in places that are inexpensive and where there is no automatic expectation of a lengthy time commitment. A coffee shop is an ideal venue for first dates; you'd have to buy a lot of lattes and pastries to drop $20 or $25, and you can make a graceful exit after thirty minutes if things aren't going well. On the other hand, if things are going well, you can usually linger as long as you'd like, or just leave together and take a nice stroll.

Another reason not to spend big bucks on first dates is that the woman may feel you're trying to buy her. This is one of those issues that cause a great deal of mutual misunderstanding and mutual resentment. The man feels that the woman is happy to let him lavish his money on her, and the woman feels that the guy is acting like he owns her. It's a common problem in the dating world.

Getting back to your question about going Dutch, I personally don't like the idea, unless the woman insists on it (there's nothing to be gained in arguing with a woman). If you're keeping your costs to a minimum and not obviously hinting at a "quid pro quo", you're more likely to come across as a man of sophistication if you pick up the tab. I may be old-fashioned in this regard, but I think that, when it comes to women, a little treat is never a bad idea. But keep the treats little, especially on first dates. You don't want to miss a child support payment because of too many fancy restaurant meals.

Good luck, Ron, and let me know how your next date goes.

The Cohabitation Blues

2009-10-16T14:11:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I'm a 34 year old woman. I've been going with my boyfriend for about four years, and living with him for two years. When he moved in with me, I thought it would be the next step in our relationship, and that we'd soon be making plans to get married. Instead, it seems like we're farther from marriage now than we were before. Whenever I bring up the subject, my boyfriend says "Why should we rock the boat?" He feels we've got a nice thing going right now, and that marriage is just asking for trouble (he likes to cite the 50% divorce rate). My friends say he's stringing me along, but I'd like a man's perspective, which is why I'm writing to you. Thanks. ("Frustrated" in Portland, Oregon)

DEAR "FRUSTRATED": I agree with your friends: your boyfriend is stringing you along.

He may not be doing it intentionally, but he's perfectly happy with the current set-up and he has no motivation to change it. My guess is he has a nice place to live in and a nice woman to sleep with, cook for him, and keep him company. If you're not going to press him for a commitment, why should he offer one on his own?

The problem with cohabitation arrangements is that most women go into it with your attitude (that it's a step closer to marriage), and most guys go into it with your boyfriend's attitude (that's it's a great way to eat well, live in a clean house, and have sex regularly). Unless the woman gives the guy an ultimatum, things just drift along until one of the other of them takes up with someone new or finds some other reason to end the relationship.

And that's my advice to you: give him an ultimatum. But an ultimatum doesn't have to mean a threat, nor does it have to be delivered in an angry tone. In fact, it's a positive message. You'd be telling your boyfriend you love him enough to want to spend the rest of your life with him. You're willing to make a lifelong commitment to him, but only if he's willing to make one to you, and by "lifelong commitment" you mean marriage.

As for a timetable, I think it's reasonable to give him thirty days to make a decision, but I wouldn't give him more than that. And I wouldn't accept an answer that says he'll marry you "someday" or in "a couple of years." Unless he's willing to set a wedding date within a year, move on with your life.

By the way, the argument about the 50% divorce rate is, at best, very misleading. We know the divorce rates because every state keeps statistics on the number of marriages and the number of divorces each year. But there are no official statistics on the break-up of non-marriage cohabitations. My guess is, though, that 95% of such cohabitations fail within ten years, and probably only 25% of them last as long as five years. So, if you're looking for permanence, don't look at cohabitation.

Good luck, "Frustrated", and let me know what happens.

A Disaster Waiting to Happen

2009-10-12T09:34:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I heard you on a radio show talking about online dating, and I remember you said that long-distance relationships are not necessarily a waste of time, especially when one person is seriously thinking of moving close to where the other person lives. I live in the Tampa Bay area, and I met a great guy from Chicago through match.com. He says he's fed up with Midwestern winters, and wants to move to Florida before Thanksgiving. The only thing is, he won't have the money to buy a place here until he can sell his condo in Chicago. He says that if I let him move in with me temporarily, he'll pay me $1,000 a month rent. I do have an extra bedroom, and I could certainly use the money, but I feel a little funny about having someone move in that I don't really know (we've talked on the phone many times, but have never met in person). Any thoughts? ("Jennifer" from Clearwater)

DEAR JENNIFER: You're right to "feel funny" about all of this. In both a legal and a personal sense, this could turn into a disaster for you.

Legally, if your online friend moves in with you, you'd be creating a landlord-tenant relationship. I don't know the details of Florida law, but in general once a tenancy is created, a tenant has all sorts of protections. If he pays you the first month's rent and then suddenly stops paying, it may take you up to three months to evict him, during which time you'd be paying court costs and legal fees. Unless you're in the business of owning rental properties, you shouldn't become a landlord these days unless it's an absolute last resort.

In a personal sense, the situation could still be a disaster even if he pays the rent each month. What if, after you finally meet in person, it turns out that you really don't think of him as a romantic partner, but he thinks of you that way? It would be extremely uncomfortable, to say the least, to have to share a house with someone under those circumstances. You'd be spending all your time trying to avoid him, and you probably wouldn't feel comfortable bringing some new boyfriend over. There's even the possibility of a sexual assault. I just don't see any good coming of this.

If the guy really does have a sincere desire to move to Florida, and the money to do it, let him find his own place, or let someone else take him on as a roommate. That way, you can still see each other if you want, but without the legal complications, the financial risk, and the interpersonal and sexual tensions.

Good luck, Jennifer, and let me know how it turns out.

Married, But Living Separately?

2009-10-05T13:52:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please submit your questions to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I'm 64 and have been a widow for ten years. About nine months ago, I met a wonderful man, "Carl", at a lunch club for widows and widowers. Carl is 66 and lost his wife three years ago. We fell in love almost immediately, and we're already talking marriage. The only thing that concerns me is that Carl doesn't want us to live together after we're married. We're both homeowners---in fact, we live only a mile from each other---and either one of our homes is big enough for two people to share. But Carl is perfectly happy with continuing the kind of relationship we have now after we're married: seeing each other for lunch and dinner almost every day, staying overnight together two or three times a week at one place or the other, going away on weekend trips every so often, etc. In some ways it sounds appealing; I've been living alone for so long I'm not sure how easy it would be to share a home again. But it also sounds a little crazy, like it wouldn't be a "real" marriage. And isn't it a waste of money to have two houses when one will do? What do you think? ("Karen" in South Florida)

DEAR KAREN: Financially speaking, it probably is a waste of money to have two houses when one will suffice. You would have twice the taxes, twice the insurance, twice the maintenance and utilities, and---if you don't own your homes outright---twice the mortgage payments.

But you would also have twice the space. And space, literally or figuratively, is what Carl seems to want. Like you, he's evidently comfortable with the daily routine he's developed since being on his own. It sounds as if he's successfully adapted that routine to allow for a significant amount of time with you, and it also sounds as if there is no other woman in his life or any other troubling reason for his not wanting to live with you full-time.

My personal feeling is that what Carl wants is unusual but not "crazy." In fact, it may be perfectly rational. He may fear that sharing a house full-time would destroy the romance you have now, or cause one or both of you to grow irritated with the other person's habits. He may like the idea of staying up late several nights a week to read or watch TV without keeping you up, or lingering over the morning paper without having to make conversation.

In my book, I discuss what I call "unconventional" marriages. In essence, I say that if a particular arrangement works for the two people involved, and there are no child-rearing issues to complicate things, it doesn't matter how strange it may appear to the rest of the world. In fact, the rest of the world may be jealous of a married couple who respect each other's need for alone-time, and see each other only when they really want to.

Of course, if you're truly uncomfortable with Carl's idea, you shouldn't get married to him. But if your main concern is how the arrangement would look to others, I wouldn't let that influence your decision. As for the money, it sounds like the two of you are doing pretty well right now, so your standard of living shouldn't be compromised if you were to get married.

Good luck, Karen, and please let me know what happens.

His Driving is Driving Her Crazy!

2009-09-28T09:26:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: My husband has always been a pretty aggressive driver, but over the past couple of years he's gotten worse. He can't drive across town without at least once leaning on the horn, giving someone the finger, following too closely, etc. I cringe when I'm with him, and I'm afraid that one of these days there will be a road rage incident like you read about in the newspaper. He knows I'm terrified of getting into an accident or some other incident, but if I say something he just gets angrier, accusing me of siding with the other driver over him. I try not to drive with him unless it's necessary, but we do go a lot of places together (restaurants, weekend trips, etc.), and he won't even consider letting me drive "his" truck. What can I do? ("Lynda" in Tennessee)

DEAR LYNDA: I'm hoping you have another vehicle you can drive, because I don't think you should even get in your husband's truck until he's gotten some psychological help. He's got major anger-management issues, and it's just a matter of time before---as you said---you'll be reading about him in the newspaper.

It may feel strange at first, but you're going to have to start going places in two separate vehicles. When he demands to know why, you'll want to stay calm and stay in control. Explain that it's been obvious for a long time that you're uncomfortable being in the truck with him, and that it's best for both of you that you go in separate vehicles for the time being.

If he asks what "the time being" means, tell him that it's entirely up to him; once he gets help and changes his driving habits for the better, you'll be happy to start going places together again. To give him some practical information, you might want to do a google search of defensive-driving programs in your area, most of which at least touch on road rage prevention. You might also want to find out if there are psychologists nearby who deal with anger-management issues regularly. Because judges will often require anger-management sessions for people convicted of aggressive driving offenses, your local traffic court may be an excellent source of information.

With guys like your husband, I would be careful not to provoke him even more by implying that he is totally at fault. Tell him that you know that there are a lot of idiots out there on the road, but that there's nothing he can do about them except keep his distance from them. Tell him you don't want to see him do something crazy, even if in theory he's in the right, nor do you want to see him wind up in jail, or in the hospital, or in the morgue.

But don't be so supportive that you back down; your safety and your sanity are at stake. And don't think about the monetary costs. Whatever extra money you'll have to spend on gas by taking two vehicles, or whatever the anger-management treatment will cost, is a pittance compared to the cost of car repairs, hospital bills, lawyer fees, insurance surcharges, and God-knows-what else.

Good luck, Lynda, and let me know how it turns out.

High School Reunion Controversy

2009-09-12T11:12:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com)

DEAR JIM: My 30th high school reunion is coming up in a couple of months, and my wife has made it clear that she wants to go with me. I'm not wild about the idea. My wife doesn't know any of my old classmates (she and I grew up in different states, and none of my old friends were at our wedding three years ago), and I'm sure she'll be bored stiff. Also, I'm worried that it won't be fun for me if she's by my side the whole time. Don't get me wrong: I'm not looking to hook up with old girlfriends. (I went to a few previous reunions when I was married to my first wife, and believe me, nothing happened). But I don't want to be inhibited about what I say to people, or have people feel inhibited about saying things to me. Is there any way I can gently explain to her that it will be better for both of us if I go alone, without triggering suspicions on her part? ("Joe" on Long Island)

DEAR JOE: I agree with you that spouses and reunions are often a bad mix, especially when the spouse doesn't know anyone there. Unfortunately, though, spouses often insist on going anyway, and not only because they might be suspicious of old girlfriends or concerned that you might drink too much with your old buddies. There's actually a good reason your wife might want to go: she may want to know more about who you are.

Think about it: the two of you have only been married a relatively short time. I don't know your wife's age, but you were apparently in your mid-40's when you got married. Whether you realize it or not, she may be very curious about the kind of person you were in your younger days, and eager to see the reactions of your friends when they see you again.

I think you should talk to your wife and make sure she understands that the purpose of your reunion---of any class reunion---is to reconnect with old friends and rehash old stories. Make sure she understands that some of those friends may seem like total idiots to her, but they mean a lot to you. And make sure she understands that the stories you'll all tell will be funnier to you than they will be to her.

And I would also tell your wife exactly what you told me about the old girlfriends. If she's been to her own reunions, she should already know that, yes, some flirtation is bound to occur, but that flirtation doesn't have to lead to a hook-up. In fact, thirty years of aging (on everyone's part) will often provide a reality-check when it comes to romantic fantasies.

If, after hearing all that from you, your wife still wants to go, then you have no choice but to take her. But you'll both have to go there with the right attitudes: no expressions of boredom on her part, and no "I'm here with my chaperone" attitude on yours. Introduce her proudly to your friends, and don't forget to introduce her to your old girlfriends, too. And, if possible, try to introduce her to some other "lonely spouse"; it might be fun for your wife and it might take the pressure off of you to constantly entertain her. You never know: you may have a better time with your wife there than you would by yourself.

Good luck, Joe, and let me know what happens.

End the Marriage After an Affair?

2009-09-08T17:01:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send all questions to jim@attorneyatlove.com)

DEAR JIM: I learned two weeks ago that my husband had an affair with a 23 year old intern at his marketing firm (he's 40). They apparently saw each other all summer until she returned to grad school in another state. I learned of the affair inadvertently after reading some e-mails that he sent to her in the middle of the night and failed to erase. He admitted that he had sex with her but insisted that it was she who came on to him. He also insists that it's the one and only time something like this has ever happened in our six years of marriage, and promised that it will never happen again. My friends all say that I'd be crazy to stay with him, and that it's probably not the first time it happened, only the first time he's been caught. I'm distraught and really torn. I don't want to throw out the good with the bad, but neither do I want to be a fool. Any advice? ("Tortured" in Chicago)

DEAR "TORTURED": A lot of people feel the way your friends do---that with adultery, it's one strike and you're out. And a lot of people believe that all adulterers become serial adulterers, and that even when they get caught they still can't be trusted. There's certainly plenty of real-world evidence to support their beliefs, but the problem with listening to friends is that it's your life, not theirs, that will change irrevocably if you terminate your marriage. You have to decide if divorce is really what you want.

Being tortured by indecision is no way to live, but neither is being tortured by regret later on. I think what both you and your husband need to do is to take a collective deep breath and start communicating again---simply, honestly, and without accusations, excuses, or meltdowns. You'll both need to understand why the affair happened. "She threw herself at me", even if true, doesn't tell the whole story. The real issue is why he was so receptive to her come-on.

It won't be easy to discuss these kinds of things without getting some help. You may want to consult a marriage counselor, particularly one who specializes in infidelity issues. You may also want to check out www.beyondaffairs.com, a website and online support group created by a couple in Vancouver, Anne and Brian Bercht, whose marriage was ultimately strengthened after his affair forced them to confront some major issues in their marriage.

You may or may not eventually decide to stay with your husband, but you owe it to yourself---and to him, too---to make a sincere effort to figure out what went wrong and (if possible) what can still be done to make things right.

Good luck, "Tortured." I hope you'll let me know your decision once you've had time to recover from your pain.

When Your Husband is a Porn Addict

2009-09-02T15:16:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to: jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: My husband and I have been married thirty years. We used to have a good sex life, but it's been nearly five years since we last made love. I'm not happy about that, but I could probably accept it if my husband was medically unable to perform. But he goes on porn sites all the time. I know this because he never deletes his Internet history, and I've seen days when he's been on over a dozen porn sites. Jim, I may not be as slim or pretty as I once was, but I think I still look pretty good for my age. Why would a man prefer pictures to a real-life woman? What can I do about it? ("Yvonne" in Colorado)

DEAR YVONNE: If it makes you feel any better, you're not alone. Pornography addiction among men is rampant these days. A sex therapist I know says that pornography's appeal can be explained by the "Three A's": it's accessible, affordable, and anonymous.

A guy who prefers porn to a real flesh-and-blood woman is saying, in effect, that he's not interested in foreplay, or seduction, or pleasing a woman. He's saying that he doesn't want to talk before or after sex, and that he doesn't want to deal with the imperfections of real-world bodies, or the demands made by real-world sex partners.

He may also be conscious of his waning sexual prowess. More than a few porn addicts need to look at literally hundreds of nude pictures before they can get fully erect or before they can achieve orgasm. Sitting in front of a computer screen can be less threatening than lying in bed naked next to a woman.

But all that is an explanation, not an excuse. Your husband is not doing either of you a favor by his actions, and he's eventually going to cause you to have an affair or to file for divorce (or both). What you have to do---right away---is to seek marriage counseling, particularly with someone skilled in dealing with sexual issues. A licensed sexual therapist might also be a good idea.

In making the case for therapy, you don't necessarily have to tell your husband that you know he visits porn sites; the mere fact that you haven't had sex in five years is proof that something is wrong. You can remind him of how much you---and presumably he---used to enjoy making love, and how badly you miss those days. Once you begin therapy, you can confidentially tell the therapist what you learned from the Internet history.

If he balks at the idea of any kind of therapy, please refer to the advice I gave "Roberta" on August 16. It's vital for both of you that you get help, and you should be aggressive in seeking it and in persuading your husband to participate willingly.

Good luck, Yvonne, and let me know what happens.

Battling the Summer Invasion

2009-08-20T09:17:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: I'm 55 years old and have been married for seven months to "Tony", a widower. When we got married, I sold my condo in the city and moved into Tony's house in a seaside town about forty miles away. It was great until Memorial Day weekend, when we started getting besieged by visits from his brothers and sisters and their families, plus his two grown daughters and their kids. There were literally five days all summer when no one was visiting. Some of these visits overlapped, and when they did we had as many as nine guests at a time. One sister and her teenage kids stayed two weeks, and practically no one stayed less than a week. Tony had given me the impression that his family's visits were pretty much a weekend thing. I have a home-based consulting business that's impossible to run with all these people around. I'm already dreading next summer. Tony's a wonderful guy but he just can't say no to his family, and he's off at work five days a week and doesn't have to deal with everything the way I do. Any suggestions, short of running away? ("Ann Marie" in the Carolinas)

DEAR ANN MARIE: The old saying is, unfortunately, true, that you don't marry a person, you marry his whole family. And when you come in late in the game, there's a well-established system in place that is not going to be easy to dismantle. But if you want to stay married and also stay sane, you---and Tony---are going to have to make some changes to the system.

The first thing the two of you need to do is to have a serious conversation. You can point out, correctly but calmly, that you were under the impression that the visits were mainly on the weekends. You were mentally prepared to deal with having houseguests two or three days a week, and (presumably) you'd be willing to live with that in the future. You can also explain, if he doesn't realize it already, that you can't run a business with up to nine people wandering in and out of the house all day.

But try not to criticize his relatives overtly, even if they deserve criticism; it will just make him defensive. Instead, make it clear that you need to work together to come up with a solution for next summer and beyond. What you'll probably have to do, prior to the end of this year, is to send out joint letters or e-mails to everyone who's visited and let them know that next summer you won't be able to accommodate guests other than on weekends, and even then only one group of guests at a time. Urge them to make their "reservations" as early as possible, and mention that you'll be happy to help people find hotels or rental properties if they want to stay longer.

Inevitably, you're going to be "blamed" for this. "Gee, Dad marries Ann Marie and all of a sudden she's running the place." And if he's the soft touch you say he is, he may be tempted to bend the rules if his relatives plead their case to him directly (and they will). But, for the sake of your marriage, it's vital that the two of you present a united front.

So, I hope you won't need to run away next summer. But maybe at the end of the summer you and Tony can go away somewhere for a week or so and enjoy some together-time, away from your jobs and other people. Knowing that you've got a nice "reward" ahead of you may make it easier to put up with the disruptions that even weekend visits can cause.

Good luck, Ann Marie, and let me know how it turns out.

"It Takes Two, Baby..."

2009-08-16T10:00:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: In your last post [Tuesday, August 11] you advised "Stephanie" to seek marriage counseling and/or sex therapy. But what if her husband refuses to go with her? That's my problem. My husband and I have all kinds of issues but whenever I bring up counseling he says I can do what I want but he's not interested. Should I just go on my own? I'm sick of beating my head against the wall. ("Roberta" in upstate New York).

DEAR ROBERTA: You certainly can go to counseling on your own, but it wouldn't be marriage counseling. Marriage counseling (or "couples" counseling) by definition requires the active involvement of both parties to the relationship.

I don't know your husband, so I don't know the reason he's reluctant to participate in marriage counseling. However, there are several possibilities, the worst of which is that he's simply washed his hands of responsibility for maintaining the relationship. In this scenario, he's saying, in effect, "Hey, it's your problem (if you think there's a problem). Do something about it if you want, but don't bother me."

If that's truly his attitude, you should still seek counseling on your own, but the counseling will have to be focused on you: whether you should stay in the marriage or not, whether you can live a satisfying life knowing your husband is unwilling to participate in problem-solving, etc.

A second possibility is that your husband knows he's wrong, but is afraid of being told that by some outside person. He may feel that he's capable of changing, but that he'll do it his way. Of course, "his" way may mean doing nothing. But in this scenario, there's at least a glimmer of hope, in that your husband doesn't necessarily see the problem as yours alone.

A third possibility is that he may think that you and the marriage counselor are going to gang up on him, especially if the counselor is a woman. Or he may fear that he won't be able to express his feelings the way a woman can. In cases like this, one solution might be to find a male counselor, especially one who doesn't use a lot of intimidating jargon or "therapy talk." But even before you get that far, your husband might want to see a counselor on his own for a few sessions. It's possible that he's reluctant to express his feelings about your marriage in front of you, but he might open up to someone if you're not in the room. After a while, he might lose his inhibitions and be ready for a traditional "couples" approach.

Whatever your husband's reasons may be for avoiding counseling, you need to stress to him that a) you still love him; but b) your marital problems are not going to go away just because he chooses to avoid them. I wouldn't threaten him with divorce at this point, but I would say something like, "Our marriage means so much to me, and I would hate to see it end over something we can still work out."

None of this will be easy, but if you're persistent in a positive way there's a good chance your husband will come around.

Good luck, Roberta, and let me know what happens.

When "Honesty" Goes Too Far

2009-08-11T09:58:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any question you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com)

DEAR JIM: I'm 49 and have been married nearly twenty years. I love my husband and would never want to leave him, but our sex life is the weak link in our relationship. I've probably always had a stronger sex drive than him, but the gap seems to be widening. He can still perform, but I always have to initiate everything, and even then he'll often find a way to put it off (too tired, etc.). That's the background. My immediate problem is that earlier this summer I had an affair. I met a very attractive man at a conference we were both attending, and we wound up having sex three times that week. I knew from the beginning there would be no future in it---he's married, too, and lives halfway across the country---but I did it anyway, and now I'm feeling terrible. I can't get rid of the guilt, but at the same time I know that I wouldn't have gotten into that situation if I was getting what I needed at home. Should I confess to my husband? At least then he would know how how frustrated I am, but also how much I want to stay married. ("Stephanie" in Canada)

DEAR STEPHANIE: Confessing to your husband would be a mistake, even if accompanied by a declaration of love and a plea for forgiveness.

I gather that there's no continuing communication between you and the other man---if there is, end it immediately---so there's little or no chance your husband would ever find out what happened on his own. What possible good would come of your telling him? Think about it. Do you really think his reaction would be that he's sorry he pushed you into the affair by ignoring your needs? Do you really think he'd be able to forgive, forget, and start trusting again?

Despite the lip service we all pay to "honesty", it's not always a virtue, especially when the person on the receiving end never asked for full disclosure and probably isn't prepared to deal with it. It's no fun bearing the burden of guilt, but you'll feel even guiltier if your confession backfires. A famous writer once said that we may hurt ourselves with our sins, but we only hurt others with our confessions. He's right.

But you can still turn your experience into something positive for your marriage. It's understandable that you're unhappy with your sex life at home, and if something isn't done to improve it you'll eventually be seeking sex outside your marriage again (temptation will often trump guilt, especially when you add self-justification to the mix). The two of you really need to see a marriage counselor and/or a qualified sex therapist as soon as possible. I'm not necessarily saying that your husband's sex drive will ever be the equal of yours, but with awareness and motivation he should be able to please you a lot more and keep you from looking elsewhere.

The only things you need to "confess" to your husband at this point are your desire to have a more satisfying sex life and marriage, and your interest in getting outside help. As long as you express your needs clearly but without overtly criticizing your husband or blaming him, he shouldn't be threatened by these legitimate requests.

I hope this helps, Stephanie. Let me know how it turns out.

Good Manners and Online Dating: A Contradiction in Terms?

2009-08-06T15:34:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering questions submitted by readers. Please send any relationship question you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com)

DEAR JIM: I'm a 52 year old woman just getting back into the dating world (I was divorced three years ago). I'm active on the plentyoffish.com site, but I'm increasingly annoyed at the lack of manners I encounter from other members. I've taken the trouble to write nice messages to a number of men, only to get no reply whatsoever. These are men who said in their profile that they were looking for a woman in my age group, my geographic location, my educational level, etc. I've also had several experiences where we seemed to have a promising correspondence going, and then the guy disappears. Is this normal behavior on dating sites? ("Jill" from Seattle)

DEAR JILL: I'm sorry to say you're not the only one with this problem. Thoughtlessness and bad manners are, unfortunately, common in the world of online dating, especially on the free sites such as plentyoffish and the craigslist dating categories. When a person hasn't invested a single penny in the process, he's not likely to invest his time and energy in it, either. The problem also exists on the "paid" sites, but usually not to the same extent.

That's not to say that there aren't great people on the free sites; you've just got to work a little harder to find them. You also have to strike a balance between being optimistic and being realistic. If you write to someone, assume that there's at best a fifty-fifty chance of hearing back from him. With that in mind, keep your initial messages short; just tell him enough to pique his curiosity. If you tell him your whole life story, not only will you have wasted a great deal of time if he doesn't reply, but you may actually be ensuring that he doesn't reply. A lot of men---and women, too---are suspicious of messages that reveal too much, too soon.

As for people who start out strong and then seem to disappear into thin air: a dirty little secret about online dating is that a significant percentage of people on these sites are not serious about actually meeting someone. They enjoy the correspondence aspect because it enables them to have the illusion of a relationship without any of the burdens of a relationship. But when the other person starts pressing for an in-person meeting, they panic and bail out. This is one of many reasons why I urge people to schedule a meeting after no more than a half-dozen e-mail exchanges. You don't want to spend months getting invested in someone who just wants a pen-pal (or who has been misrepresenting himself as to age, looks, employment, marital status, or just about anything else you can think of).

Good luck, Jill, and don't take it personally when people behave badly.

Is There a "Right Time" to Remarry?

2009-08-01T08:41:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: Beginning today, my blog will be devoted to relationship questions submitted by readers. If you have a question, please send it to jim@attorneyatlove.com).

DEAR JIM: How soon after a divorce is it OK to get seriously involved with another person? I'm a 41 year old man, was married for nine years, have been divorced less than a year, and have three boys who live with my ex, but whom I see several times a week. A month after my divorce became final, I met a woman who seems ideal in every way. We've become enormously attracted to each other, and neither of us wants to date anyone else. She's beginning to talk about living together and possibly getting married. I do love her, but I'm a bit uneasy about that level of commitment. Am I being too cautious? I don't want to lose her, but I want to be sure I never go through another divorce again. ("Scott" in Texas)

DEAR SCOTT: You're right to be concerned. Men, in general, are far more likely than women to become involved with a new person soon after a divorce. There's nothing inherently wrong with forming a new relationship so quickly, but many men do it for the wrong reasons. Wrong reasons can include panic, depression, a need to restore self-esteem, revenge against the "ex", an inability to function without a woman around, or pressure from a new girlfriend to commit prematurely.

Because men like to define themselves by actions, in times of stress men are prone to "do something" rather than dwell on the causes of the stress. The problem is, what a man will often do is the same thing that brought about the stress in the first place; jumping, so to speak, from the frying pan into the fire. This is one of the reasons why second and third marriages have an even higher divorce rate than first marriages.

You actually have made a commitment to your new girlfriend, in that you love her and are not interested in seeing other women. What you need to do is to reassure her that your commitment is real, but that you need more time to reflect on what went wrong in your marriage and to get over the hurt of your divorce. You also need more time to see how your relationship with your kids evolves, and to see how her relationship with your kids evolves.

I think that if you just level with her, and emphasize that you're not stringing her along or seeing other women on the side, she'll understand. She may even respect you more for it. As for how long this will take, I don't think waiting another year is unreasonable. It wouldn't be the worst thing---for either of you---to hold off until you've had an argument or two, and seen each other in good times and bad.

Good luck, and let me know what happens.

Announcing a Contest!

2009-07-15T09:41:00.000-07:00

Do you need relationship advice? Would you like to win a prize? Well, you came to the right place!

Beginning August 1, 2009, I'm going to be writing a weekly advice column. I'll be answering questions from readers struggling with issues concerning marriage, divorce, post-divorce dating, and men-women relationships in general. Time permitting, I will try to answer each question individually and privately, but I will publish the best question submitted each week, along with my response, in the column.

What constitutes the "best" question? Well, I guess I have to say I'll know it when I see it! In general, I'm looking for questions that a reader in the 35-to-65 age group would find interesting and relevant.

To jump-start the process, I'll be giving an autographed copy of my book, "Mid-Life Divorce and the Rebirth of Commitment", to the first ten people who submit questions that I use in the column.

All you need to do is to send an e-mail with your question to jim@attorneyatlove.com. The more information you include, the easier it will be for me to understand your situation, but I may edit the published version for space considerations, as well as for spelling and grammar. I will not publish any identifying information about you but, if you want to be eligible for a prize, you will of course have to give me your complete mailing address, with zip code.

Initially, the questions and answers will be published in this blog space, but eventually I expect to have a separate site devoted to them.

So, if you've got an issue that's been bothering you, tell me about it. I may be able to help. And maybe reading my book will help you even more.

I look forward to hearing from you.
Jim

P.S.---Although I am an attorney (licensed in Massachusetts only), any advice I may give in connection with this column is NOT intended to be legal advice, and should not be relied on as such. If you have a specific legal question or problem, please consult a qualified attorney in your home state.

R.I.P.: Steve McNair and Sahel Kazemi

2009-07-10T14:20:00.000-07:00

"Never go to bed with a woman who has more problems than you do."
(Nelson Algren, American novelist)

"You play around, you lose your wife,
You play too long, you lose your life."
(From the country song, "Good Time Charley's Got the Blues")

The recent murder-suicide deaths of former NFL quarterback Steve McNair and his twenty-year old girlfriend, Sahel Kazemi, have put me in a pretty depressed mood the past week. I had followed McNair's career from the early '90's, when he was compiling sensational passing records at tiny Alcorn State University, to his retirement a couple of years ago from the Tennessee Titans. Like most football fans, I admired not only his skills but also his toughness. McNair would "play hurt", as they say, unlike so many players of today who will nurse an injury forever rather than jeopardize their future earning capacity. And, from what I had heard, he always gave back to the community in ways large and small.

McNair was also known as a great family man. He married his college sweetheart, Mechelle, who became a nurse and was by all accounts a wonderful wife to McNair and wonderful mother to their four kids. Even though injuries finally forced McNair to retire from football a bit prematurely at age 34, the family was financially set for life. As a player, McNair hadn't squandered his money on Ferraris or thirty-room mansions; he and Mechelle lived an upscale, but not flamboyant, lifestyle, and their kids' needs always seemed to come first.

Or so it seemed.

It turns out that, apparently unbeknownst to Mechelle, Steve McNair was living a double life. At some point, he and a buddy of his purchased a condo in Nashville to entertain women. One of those women was Sahel Kazemi. Ms. Kazemi's friends and family members say she was outgoing and fun in public, but subject to severe mood swings. Her mother was murdered when Kazemi was nine years old, after which she lived with a variety of relatives before setting out on her own in her late teens. At the time she met McNair, she was struggling to support herself as a waitress, and she was reportedly overwhelmed by the attention, the gifts, and the romance that soon followed.

For several months, McNair and Kazemi were seeing each other three or four times a week in Nashville, and sometimes flying off together for beach vacations. He bought her a Cadillac Escalade, although, inexplicably, he put the title in both of their names. According to her close friends, he told her he was going to get divorced and marry her. She wanted to believe him---she did believe him---until the night she arrived early at McNair's condo and saw another young woman hastily leaving.

We'll never know what, if anything, she and McNair said to each other after that, but within a day or so Kazemi had managed to buy a 9 mm. pistol for $100 from a guy in a parking lot, the same pistol she used to pump four bullets into McNair before she put one into her own brain.

So, is this yet another story of a guy with money who thinks he can play around and never get caught? Maybe. And is it yet another story of an emotionally-fragile young woman who will believe what she wants to believe, and then totally freak out when she learns the truth? Maybe. But it's also a story of a loving wife who, perhaps, trusted too much. And it's a story of four little kids who once had a father and now just have some memories.

It's all so sad, and so unnecessary.

The Governor's Love Story

2009-06-29T15:58:00.000-07:00

"Yeah, he's got it bad. It's obvious he has a head-over-heels crush on that woman."
(Stephanie Coontz, author of "Marriage: A History", referring to South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford and his Argentine lover, Maria Belen Chapur)

I've said several times over the years that this is not a political blog, but it seems that I'm always writing about politicians and their extramarital adventures. It would be hard not to say something about Governor Mark Sanford, whose rather amazing story has been front-page news for the past week, and which promises to drag on for some time. But I'm not interested in discussing his hypocrisy, or his irresponsibility (both to his family and to the citizens of his state), or his use of public funds to carry on the affair---I'll leave all that to the real political bloggers.

Instead, I want to comment on two aspects of the situation that distinguish it from other political sex scandals. The first is that the governor's wife has been quite vocal in expressing her displeasure with her husband's behavior, and has by no means indicated that she can or will forgive him or take him back. In my last blog entry, I mentioned that Nevada Senator John Ensign's wife was conspicuously absent when he publicly confessed his affair, but otherwise Mrs. Ensign has remained in the background. By contrast, Mrs. Sanford hasn't hesitated to speak to reporters and camera crews, even from the driver's seat of her minivan with her kids in the back seat listening to every word.

Could it be that the era of the loyal-to-a-fault political wife has finally (and mercifully) come to an end?

The other fascinating aspect of the Sanford case is that this was not a fling with a young or ambitious campaign aide, or a two-hour hotel room tryst with a prostitute. It was---and perhaps still is---a real love affair. A love affair that (supposedly) began as a long and genuine friendship, with a woman who, by all accounts, is a woman of intelligence, sophistication, and class. I'm not, by the way, implying that Mrs. Sanford doesn't have those same qualities---she definitely does, as far as I can tell, and she's good-looking, too. But when such qualities are combined with a charming foreign accent, and when the new woman seems to be on your wavelength in every way, common sense goes out the window and a man starts thinking, saying, and doing things he never dreamed possible.

To me, what makes Governor Sanford a fascinating figure is that he knew that he was risking everything---his wife, his kids, his career---when he flew down to Argentina the most recent time. He had to have known that his unexplained absence would spark widespread media coverage. He had to have known that the truth would come out quickly and relentlessly, and that the repercussions would be severe. It's as if he had a death wish. Most other straying politicians undoubtedly knew, at some level, that they were taking a big risk, but they were typically so arrogant that they never considered that they might get caught. Governor Sanford was not so much arrogant as he was fatalistic; he was determined to do what he needed to do, and let the chips fall as they may.

I'm not saying I admire the guy, but I am saying I find him interesting, complex, even tragic. Although he's a man, in one big respect he's like many of the tragic heroines of literature and film: he was willing to risk everything for an impossible love. It will be interesting to see how the story ends, but one thing is clear: the lives of everyone involved will never be the same again. But I guess that's always been the case with love.

What Happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas? Not This Time!

2009-06-20T16:24:00.000-07:00

"Rattled, humbled, and alone at the podium, Sen. Ensign acknowledged to reporters an extramarital affair, the sort of moral failing he's criticized in the past."
(From a June 18 Associated Press story)

In a story that seems all-too-familiar, Nevada Senator John Ensign finds himself in a mess this week, his political future sinking faster than a drunk's bankroll in a Las Vegas casino.

I'll leave to others the condemnation of Senator Ensign's hypocrisy (apparently, he's been a critic of politically-prominent adulterers and a staunch defender of "family values"), but there are other aspects of this situation I find interesting. For one thing, his wife was not at his side when he faced the press. We've gotten so used to that loyal-wife-with-frozen-smile performance that we seem to have forgotten that political wives at least can be real people, not some prop for a staged press conference.

To the best of my knowledge, Mrs. Ensign has not publicly commented on the case, but her silence seems to say: "You can twist in the wind by yourself, Johnny Boy." Good for her! And good for all of us who have gotten tired of political wives being victimized a second time by being pressured to feign forgiveness and support when their world has just come undone.

I also find it intriguing that the woman Senator Ensign had the affair with, Cynthia Hampton, was the wife of his long-time top assistant, Doug Hampton, and that the two couples and their children had socialized together for years in their Las Vegas neighborhood. Obviously, familiarity can breed attraction as well as contempt, but how stupid can you be? If you're determined to have sex outside your marriage, don't do it right under the nose of your spouse. And even if you're willing to risk jeopardizing your marriage, don't also jeopardize your friendships and professional relationships.

Senator Ensign's stupidity continued even after the affair ended. Apparently, he used political campaign funds, which are closely regulated by Federal law, to try to keep Doug Hampton from going public about the affair once he found out. Whether Mr. Hampton had demanded a payout as a form of extortion is something that will undoubtedly be revealed in the weeks ahead. But the fact remains that Senator Ensign compounded his problems by inviting scrutiny of his campaign accounts, something that may lead to a criminal prosecution.

I said in my book that I'm a moral relativist when it comes to adultery, and what I mean by that is that I can sometimes sympathize with a person's temptation to have an affair, especially if he or she is in a truly unhappy marriage. I don't recommend giving in to the temptation, however, because an affair is not the best way to get what's missing in your marriage, and affairs tend to end badly. Sometimes very badly, as Senator Ensign is now finding out.

Breaking the Code

2009-04-11T11:38:00.000-07:00

"Only about ten percent of the profiles contained out-and-out lies. But nearly ninety percent had exaggerations or evidence of delusional thinking."
(From an article in Online Dating News)

Although I encourage mid-life singles to give online dating a fair try, I stress that, on dating sites, what you read is not always what you get. In fact, even what you see is not always what you get, given the prevalence of photos showing someone when he or she was ten years younger or fifty pounds slimmer.

Most experienced online daters have developed a sixth sense about the veracity of claims made in member profiles, and are wary of vague-sounding terms like "attractive", "youthful-looking", and "height-weight proportionate." But for those who are just starting out in the world of online dating, I thought I'd offer my own take on what certain words or expressions might actually mean. We'll call it breaking the online code.

"Outgoing and fun" (Translation: Never shuts up)
"Intellectual interests and a quirky sense of humor" (Translation: Weird, neurotic, high maintenance)
"A young 55" (Translation: Might pass for 54 on a good day)
"Successful business owner" (Translation: Owns two taco stands, one of which is in foreclosure)
"Adventurous, will try anything once" (Translation: You'll be the third guy she takes to bed this week)
"Athletic build" (Translation: Yeah, if your sport is sumo wrestling)
"Attentive and Affectionate" (Translation: His hands will be all over you in the first five minutes)
"Let's meet for lunch" (Translation: Married)
"A few extra pounds" (Translation: A few extra pounds on top of many extra pounds)
"Seeking soulmate" (Translation: There's gotta be someone out there who can tolerate me)
"Commitment-minded" (Translation: Potential stalker)
"Friends first" (Translation: Hell will freeze over before I have sex with you)
"Will relocate for the right person" (Translation: Broke, unemployed, and facing eviction)
"Must love animals" (Translation: Known in her neighborhood as the crazy cat lady)
"Loves travel and fine dining" (Translation: If you're paying)
"Recently divorced" (Translation: Bitter and vindictive. All you'll talk about is the ex)
"Your pic gets mine" (Translation: I have a better chance if you don't know what I look like)
"New to online dating" (Translation: Just joined this site, but failed miserably on ten previous ones)
"Ready to finally settle down" (Translation: Can't get it up any more and nearly at death's door. Hoping someone will take him out of pity)

OK, I'm just kidding. But please do exercise a degree of skepticism when you browse the profiles. And try to meet a promising-sounding match in person at the earliest opportunity. There's nothing funny about wasting weeks or months corresponding with a person who's clearly wrong for you.

When $43,000,000 Just Won't Cut It

2009-03-19T17:30:00.000-07:00

"I can't live on forty-three million dollars."
(Marie Douglas-David, testifying in her divorce trial in Hartford, Connecticut)

Described in the newspapers as a "36 year-old Swedish countess", Marie Douglas-Davis is in the process of getting a divorce from her husband, 67 year old George David, former CEO of United Technologies Corp. and (for now, anyway) a very wealthy man. How wealthy he'll be after the divorce, however, is very much up for grabs.

Although the couple has been married only since 2002, the marriage has reportedly been troubled since at least 2004, with each party accusing the other of multiple affairs. In 2005, after a series of separations and reconciliations, the couple signed a "postnuptial agreement", which provided that, should there be a divorce, Marie would get a lump-sum payment of forty-three million dollars from George, in lieu of alimony, real estate, or any other property.

Now, four years later, Marie wants the court to declare the agreement null and void. She claims she was coerced into signing it, and claims that the lump-sum amount is "embarrassingly small" in light of her husband's reported $329 million net worth. She now wants $100 million up front, plus $150,000 a month in alimony.

Although the case is in the news because of the outrageous financial statements that have been filed (among other things, Marie says she spends a minimum of $4,500 a week on clothing and $8,700 a week on travel expenses and limousine rides), I'm writing about it here because of the postnuptial agreement issue.

Postnuptial agreements are a lot less common than prenuptial agreements, and they're not recognized by statute everywhere, but they are coming into the mainstream of American family law. In essence, postnuptial agreements are prenuptial agreements entered-into after the wedding date, not before it. In the states where they are legally recognized, postnuptial agreements can address any and all of the issues that are addressed in prenuptial agreements, most notably property division and alimony in the event of divorce.

Like a prenuptial agreement, a postnuptial agreement allows a husband and wife to, in a sense, make their own law. For example, the agreement may specify that the wife shall receive alimony, even if she wouldn't normally qualify for it under her state's divorce laws. Or, the agreement may say that the parties will split their property or apportion their debts in a way that would not normally be ordered by the divorce court. The only exceptions are in the areas of child custody, support, and visitation, where the court will always consider the best interests of the child or children, and never rubber-stamp an agreement made in advance by the husband and wife. But, aside from issues involving the kids, just about everything else will be approved by the court in a state that recognizes postnuptial agreements.

So, how can Marie try to invalidate an agreement that she, herself, not only signed but had her own lawyer review? Her only hope---and, according to Connecticut legal experts, it's a very slim one---is to convince the judge that she signed it when she was "emotionally vulnerable" and not thinking straight. As she puts it, "What rational person would voluntarily accept a mere $43 million from a man worth over $300 million?"

Well, call me irrational, but I think $43 million after a seven year, childless marriage is not a bad deal. In fact, by trying to invalidate the agreement Marie is creating the possibility that the judge might invalidate the agreement and then award her less than the amount she would have gotten if the agreement had been enforced. It happens. I don't give legal advice in this column, but if I did it would be simple: take the money and run. And if you don't like to run, take a limo ride. $43 million will buy a lot of them.

Announcing "Relationship Radio"

2009-02-22T15:42:00.000-08:00

Dear Friends:

Instead of my usual "Quote & Comment" article, I'd like to announce that "Relationship Radio with Jim Duzak" is about to debut on a computer near you.

The show will be broadcast live each Friday at 2:00PM Pacific time (5:00PM Eastern time), beginning March 6, 2009, on the Voice America Internet network (http://www.voiceamerica.com/). Each show will be repeated twelve hours later, and will then be archived on the Voice America site within twenty-four hours, so you can listen to it at your convenience.

On each one-hour show, I'll be interviewing a guest with something interesting and important to say about marriage, divorce, midlife dating, widowhood, or men-women relationships in general. My first five guests, for example, are:

Frankie Picasso, the "Unstoppable Coach", who works with post-divorce singles and hosts the popular "Midlife Mojo" radio show.
Joanie Winberg, the founder and director of the National Association of Divorce for Women and Children, and also a long-time radio host.
Carole Brody Fleet, author of "Widows Wear Stilettos: a Practical and Emotional Guide for the Young Widow", and a frequent guest on national TV.
Lauren Bloom, lawyer and author of the groundbreaking book, "The Art of the Apology".
Kelly McDaniel, therapist, workshop leader, and author of "Ready to Heal: Women Facing Love, Sex, and Relationship Addiction".

My goal for each show is to have a conversation that's relaxed but stimulating, a conversation that will draw the listener in and provide pleasure as well as information. I'm hoping that the show will soon be "must" listening for anyone who cares about forming or enhancing committed relationships, or dealing with the challenges of widowhood, divorce recovery, or midlife dating.

If you're not already on my mailing list and would like to get a weekly reminder of upcoming shows, please write to me at jim@attorneyatlove.com.

As always, thanks for your friendship and support, and please spread the word about "Relationship Radio".

Doing Ordinary Things Extraordinarily Well

2009-02-09T18:55:00.000-08:00

"Small-but-frequent rewards are more effective than large one-time rewards."
(Joel Kotkin, M.D., author of "How to Change Your Spouse and Save Your Marriage")

Dr. Kotkin's observation about small-but-frequent rewards is something that has been demonstrated over and over in psychological experiments. In essence, people are happier when a lot of little things go well on a daily basis, than when one really good thing happens once in a great while, with nothing good in between.

This is true even when the big reward is greater, in totality, than the sum of all the small rewards. In playing a $1.00 lottery game, for example, most people would be happier winning $2.00 every day of the year, than winning nothing for 364 days and then $1,000 on a single day. In fact, if you win nothing too many times in a row, you'll probably stop playing entirely---a fact well known to the casino industry, which wants people to stay glued to their chairs at the slot machines hour after hour.

OK, but what does this have to do with relationships? Quite a bit, actually. To keep any relationship stimulating after the initial rush of emotions has subsided, we need to do a lot of little things on a regular basis. We need to pay more attention to the other person. We need to give little compliments; offer words of encouragement, sympathy, and appreciation; and promptly reward efforts or achievements---no matter how small those efforts or achievements may be. We need to smile more and complain less. We need to touch each other often, and let it be known that we're enjoying our life together, even when life is hard.

To be sure, we need to celebrate the once-a-year events: the birthdays, the anniversaries, the religious holidays, Valentine's Day. But we should try to extend these celebrations in little ways. We can, for example, give small gifts that say, "This made me think of you." Or we can take out picture albums that remind us of happy events we've shared, or look through travel brochures that stimulate our fantasies and help to reinforce the idea that we have a future---an enjoyable future---together. We don't have to go broke doing these things, nor do we have to disrupt our schedules to find the time to do them. We can work them into our life every day, seamlessly.

When you come right down to it, life consists of a lot of little things, a lot of ordinary things, along with a sprinkling of big things. If you concentrate on doing those ordinary things extraordinarily well, the big things will probably take care of themselves. And you'll always have a reason to celebrate, even when the calendar doesn't say it's a holiday.

Advertising Your Bitterness to the World

2009-01-24T16:10:00.000-08:00

"PROVE to me there is a decent man SOMEWHERE on this planet"
(Headline in a "Women Seeking Men" ad in craigslist)

Craigslist (http://www.craigslist.org/) is a popular place for trying to sell a car, sublet an apartment, dispose of an extra ticket to a basketball game, or barter a video game collection for a used mountain bike. It's also a place where people try to find romantic partners or sexual hook-ups. In fact, I read somewhere that the various "Personals" categories get more hits than all other categories combined, although---big surprise!---men are nearly twenty times more likely than women to be checking out "Casual Encounters", and much less likely to be perusing "Strictly Platonic".

According to craigslist's criteria, the "Men Seeking Women" and "Women Seeking Men" categories are supposed to be for people seeking "dating, romance, or long-term relationships". Thus, they constitute the middle ground between friends-only and no-strings sex. Although I'm a happily married man, I read these ads from time to time to get a sense of what people say and how they say it. Given that I met my wife through a personal ad, I think that ads and online profiles can, if done right, be a good way to meet people---not the only way and not necessarily the best way, but a good way.

Of course, not everyone does it right. There are an incredible number of ads that say absolutely nothing about the people who wrote them; or that are little more than wish-lists to Santa ("... seeking someone slim, sexy, beautiful, and under 25..."); or that are riddled with misspellings and grammatical errors.

And then there are the ads that say too much about the people who wrote them. Although some ads are simply way too long (a good ad should tell the reader just enough to make him want to know more), others are of manageable length but send an unintentionally toxic message. The woman whose headline I quoted, above, is a good example. Her ad said that she has met nothing but liars, losers, and assorted lowlifes, and that she's tempted to give up on men entirely. It concluded with a paragraph that began (in all caps) "DON'T WASTE MY TIME..." (...if you don't have a steady job, if you live with roommates, if you bet on football games, etc.).

I'm sure this woman had plenty of reason to be frustrated, even disgusted. There certainly are a lot of liars, losers, and assorted lowlifes out there, and the woman clearly has enough self-confidence and self-respect to know that she deserves better. But by emphasizing her disappointments, her bad experiences, and her non-negotiable demands, the ad probably scared off the very people that she was hoping to meet.

Why would a guy who has a good job and a place of his own, a guy who's not a gambler or an alcoholic or a jerk, a guy who's sincerely interested in forming a stable relationship, want to contact this woman? A guy like that has options. Why should he want to invest time and energy on someone who has a chip on her shoulder? Why should he go out of his way to "prove to her" that he's not a loser like all the others? Keep in mind: all he knows about this woman is what she said in her ad. It's a lot easier for him to move on to the next one, which may have been written by someone emanating more positive energy.

The really sad thing is that the woman will probably never know that she's scaring the good men off. The lack of positive responses will only reinforce her notion that there are no good men out there, creating a vicious cycle of bitterness. I'm not saying that people should simply forget all the bad things that have happened to them, but they don't need to emphasize them, especially in a personal ad.

Your Kidney or Your Life!

2009-01-14T07:48:00.000-08:00

"He wants his pound of flesh. But he's not going to get it by way of the kidney."
(Lisa Bloom, CBS legal analyst)

I wish I could say I make these things up, but I don't. Every time I think I can say I've seen it all when it comes to divorce, someone comes along with a claim that trumps the others.

The lastest example of divorce litigants behaving badly is Dr. Richard Batista. The 49 year old graduate of Cornell Medical School, described in the press as a "prominent Long Island vascular surgeon", is mad at his wife. So much so that he wants her to do something that other doctors have said will literally kill her: he wants the kidney back that he donated to her in happier times. And if the divorce judge won't order that, he'll settle for $1.5 million as payment for the kidney.

Aside from the multitude of legal and ethical ethical reasons why Mrs. Batista should not have her kidney involuntarily ripped out, or have to pay big bucks for it---for starters, buying and selling organs is illegal in this country; and, clearly, the original kidney donation was...well...a donation, a gift, and the law never requires a gift to be returned---I have to wonder why the good doctor thought that such an outrageous demand would help his case, or enhance his career. He's reportedly fighting for increased visitation with his three kids---ages 14, 11, and 8. Well, he's certainly sending a hell of a message to them: "I hate your mom so much I'm willing to let her die on the operating table. But, I'll consider letting her live if she gives me a million and a half dollars."

And what about his reputation in the medical community? If you needed a surgeon, would go to him? If you were a colleague, would you refer patients to him? Ironically, his wife's attorney has described his demands as a publicity stunt. He's gotten plenty of publicity all right, but virtually all of it has been negative. What was he thinking?

And, for that matter, what was his own lawyer, Dominic Barbara, thinking? I practiced divorce law long enough to know that you can't always do everything your client wants you to do. Atty. Barbara should have said---sympathetically but firmly---"Doctor, I understand your feelings, but this is a terrible idea. At the very least, it will backfire. At worst, we could both be in trouble for ethical or even criminal violations." Of course, I'm assuming that Atty. Barbara didn't concoct this nutty scheme himself; if he did, he deserves to be disciplined by the state bar authorities.

There is something about divorce that turns otherwise reasonable, educated, accomplished people into maniacs. In almost every case I can think of, people on a mission of revenge have done far more harm to themselves than they hoped to do to their spouse. They wind up looking like fools, damaging their reputations, alienating their kids, spending a fortune on doomed-from-the-start legal battles...for what? The chance to make life miserable for their estranged spouse?

Trust me: it's not worth it. If the two spouses can't be civil enough to engage in divorce mediation or what's called collaborative divorce, they can at least be adult enough to recognize the reality that the marriage is over. They should turn their attention to their kids and to the future, and avoid saying things that will haunt them for years to come.

The Five-Year-Old Spy

2009-01-07T13:53:00.000-08:00

"An Omaha man has filed a lawsuit accusing his ex-wife of planting a recording device inside his daughter's teddy bear in order to spy on him."
(Associated Press story, 1/7/09)

I say in my book that, when it comes to marriage and divorce, I've either seen it all, heard it all, or done it all. But I have to admit that I had never imagined someone installing a recording device in a five-year-old girl's teddy bear that she brought to her father's house on weekend visits, in order to get evidence against him in a custody dispute. Several hundred hours of conversation were recorded over a six month period in 2007. It is unclear whether the little girl knew that she and her bear were acting as spies. My guess is that she had no idea.

To be sure, I know of quite a few cases where a divorced parent has tried to pump his or her kids for information about the other parent. Typically, the information sought has to do with the ex's boyfriend or girlfriend. "Did Daddy's new friend come over while you were there? Did she stay overnight? Was she nice to you or was she mean?" The questions can also arise over other issues. "Did Daddy bring you to Grandma's house Saturday? Did he stay there with you or did he just leave you there?" "Was Mommy drinking beer? Is she still smoking? Do you have to wake her up in the morning?"

Parents who do this kind of thing will always justify it. "I'm not going to send my child somewhere where it's not safe, or where he's being neglected." "That new girlfriend of his is nothing but a slut. I don't want my daughter exposed to someone like that." "Emily is always crying when she comes home on Sunday. I know something bad is happening there".

In these situations, the parent will not only pump the child for information, but will do it in a manipulative way. "Daddy's friend yelled at you, didn't she? She made you cry, didn't she? What else did she do? You don't want to ever go back there when she's there, do you?"

I'm not a child psychologist, but I do know that kids---especially pre-school kids---are easily manipulated. They want to please, and they don't want to see someone angry with them. They'll answer questions in a way that the questioner seems to want them answered, especially if the questionner is their mother or father.

It's all well and good that a parent is concerned for his or her child's welfare, but pumping a child for information about the other parent---or using the child as a spy---is about the worst thing a divorced parent can do. A child should never be put in that situation. Unless the situation is life-threatening (your child comes home from a visit with bruises, burn marks, or other visible signs of abuse), get your evidence some other way. If you think your child is being dumped off at the grandmother's most of the weekend, a private investigator can quickly confirm if that's true. If you think a particular person has caused emotional harm to your child, there are qualified child psychiatrists and psychologists who can interview your child in a non-threatening, non-manipulative way. If you think there's neglect or mistreatment going on, you can make a report to your state's child protection agency. If you want a judge to look at the matter and make changes to visitation orders, you always have that right, even if the divorce case is closed.

But never put the child in the middle. In almost every case, you'd be inflicting more damage than you're trying to prevent. And, if you put a recording device in your daughter's teddy bear, you'd not only be breaking the law, but killing your daughter's sense of innocence and trust. Nothing justifies that.

Lives of Quiet Desperation

2008-12-26T12:46:00.000-08:00

"I love my husband, but how do you make a man stop embarrassing you in public?....He asks complete strangers walking by if they would 'like to buy a wife cheap.' He tells me people think he's funny..."
(From "Not Laughing in Cincinnati", a Dear Abby questioner)

On a radio show recently, I made the rather sweeping pronouncement that eighty percent of divorces are unnecessary. I told the host that, unless a marriage is characterized by ongoing physical or emotional abuse, untreated alcoholism or drug addiction, or repeated infidelities, there should be a way of resolving problems within the relationship, at least to the extent that both spouses are reasonably satisfied most of the time.

And I do believe that. But I was talking about people who give up on their marriages too easily, without trying new or imaginative approaches to dealing with conflict. The other side of that coin are the people who suffer forever in what clearly seem to be hopeless and dispiriting marriages. These are the people who, like the Dear Abby questioner, claim to love their spouse, but die a little bit every day because of that spouse's relentless bullying, verbal abuse, and control. These are the people who should get divorced, but never seem to, usually because of an acute lack of self-respect and self-confidence.

I hope that doesn't sound like you or your marriage, but if it does I have some simple advice for you: don't put up with it another day. Don't let him call you a dumb b*tch, a fat b*tch, or any other kind of b*tch. Don't let him make jokes at your expense, funny or otherwise. Don't let him set humiliating rules for you, or monitor your whereabouts, or prevent you from seeing friends or family, or impose unwarranted limits on your discretionary spending.

But how do you stop something that has been going on without protest for years? I think you begin by staying calm, and dealing with the problem the moment it manifests itself. "John, what you just said was humiliating to me. I don't ever want to hear those words again." If he laughs, avoid the temptation to rip into him; just say, as quietly and firmly as you can, "This is anything but funny. I'm dead-serious about this."

Your new-found assertiveness may be greeted with shock, disbelief, and even anger. "Why are you telling me this now?" And, yes, you did go along with it for far too long. You may have held your tongue out of a fear of conflict or a hope that the problem would just go away. But making a mistake in the past doesn't mean you have to keep making it. Today is a new day.

Because, as I mentioned, self-confidence---or the lack thereof---often plays a key role in these situations, professional help may be needed to address the underlying problem. And professional help may be what's needed for an abusive bully, as well. But bullies are not known for self-awareness, and not likely to seek help unless pushed to the wall. The best plan is to overcome your own inhibitions first, and then assess the situation. Maybe your spouse will, after the initial shock, start respecting you and start changing his ways. If so, great. If not, divorce is an option, and it may be the best option. It's certainly a better option than suffering in silence, or writing desperate letters to Dear Abby.

******************************************************************************

A Message to My Readers

Until very recently, I have kept to the schedule I announced back in August of 2007 of writing one new blog article per week. There are now well over sixty articles archived on this site, and I immodestly believe that most of them are worth reading and re-reading.

But, in addition to my blog pieces, I now write a monthly column for ConnectionsForWomen.com, and in January I'll be a twice-a-month columnist for Boomer-Living.com. I'm proud to be affiliated with both of these high-quality sites, and I want to be sure I have the time and energy to produce good and original material for them. As a result, I've decided to scale back my blog schedule to two per month.

I thank once again those of you who have been reading these articles over the past sixteen months, and I hope that my quality-over-quantity approach will ensure your loyalty in the coming year.

"That's an Order, Honey!"

2008-12-07T09:26:00.000-08:00

"My dad started running...after my mom ordered him to lose weight."
(Stephanie Simon, quoted in a Wall Street Journal article, "Still Running After All These Years")

Dr. Harvey Simon is a man obsessed. The Newton, Massachusetts internist has run ten miles a day for thirty years. He has not missed a single day, even when suffering from broken toes and crippling back spasms. He has run through blizzards, ice storms, and hurricanes. As a doctor, he knows that he's subjecting his joints and bones to far more abuse than they were meant to handle, and he admits that he would never advise his patients to do what he does.

As a former runner, I found Dr. Simon's story fascinating, because I know how easy it is for a habit---even a good habit---to turn into an obsession. (Just because a little bit of something may be good doesn't mean that a lot is better). But as someone who writes about marriage, I was struck by the fact that, for Dr. Simon, it all began when his wife "ordered" him to lose weight.

Maybe it's just me, but I find something troubling about a husband or wife ordering his or her spouse to do something. If I ordered my wife to lose weight, she would have every right to feel that I was being obnoxious and presumptuous. Obnoxious because someone who needs to lose weight doesn't need to be reminded of it. And presumptuous because my "order" implies that I'm in a position of authority over her.

Think about it: who has the authority to issue orders to us? When you're a child, your parents do. When you're in the military, your commanding officers do. When you're at work, your boss does. When you're in the hospital, your doctors do. If you're unlucky enough to be in jail, the warden and guards do.

But your spouse is not---or shouldn't be---the equivalent of a parent or a drill sergeant or a prison guard. I'm not saying that your spouse isn't entitled to have opinions about your appearance, your habits, or your lifestyle. But the right way to deal with these opinions is either by keeping them to yourself (which is usually the best way, unless they're truly eating away at you), or by gentle persuasion.

Gentle persuasion can take a lot of forms, but it's always characterized by an underlying respect. You're treating the other person as an adult. You're not embarrassing him or nagging him. You're not saying that you're perfect and he isn't. In fact, the best form of persuasion in lifestyle matters is to say that you could both stand to lose some weight, or exercise more, or watch TV less, or whatever the issue may be. And then you attack the problem together, and celebrate each other's progress toward the agreed-upon goal.

The only exceptions to the gentle persuasion rule would be cases in which a person's actions are creating an immediate danger to himself, to his spouse, or to innocent bystanders. Thus, if your spouse is threatening you with bodily harm, you call 9-1-1 first and reason with him later (or better yet, forget the reasoning and move out immediately). If he's dead drunk and about to take the wheel of the car, it's OK to grab the keys and "order" him to lie down in the back seat until you get home.

But if he's twenty pounds overweight, or wearing clothes he should long ago have donated to Goodwill, or still sporting that Fu Manchu mustache that looked so cool in 1978, you may not like what you see but you don't have the right to order him to do something about it. Because not only does an order imply lawful authority, it also implies punishment for disobedience. If you defy your boss, you can get fired. If you disobey your commanding officer, it's thirty days in the brig. But what is the punishment for disobeying your spouse? The silent treatment? Banishment from the bedroom? Divorce? Unless you're prepared to put teeth into your orders, don't issue them.

And don't forget the old adage about not wishing too hard for something. Dr. Simon's wife did indeed get him to lose weight, but at the cost of creating a crazy man.

Creative Compromise, Part II

2008-11-27T08:32:00.000-08:00

"Compromise...is what makes nations great and marriages happy."
(Phyllis McGinley, American poet)

I commented last time about a man who was in a state of panic and depression over the prospect of his elderly mother-in-law coming to live with him and his wife. I pointed out that the situation might not be as bleak as he was seeing it; that there might be viable ways of helping out his mother-in-law in her time of need, short of taking her into their home and jeopardizing their marriage.

A reader wrote to take issue with my use of the term, "compromise". Yes, the suggestions I made might help to avert divorce, but they would still impose a financial burden on the husband that he never asked for. "What does the husband get out of this?", the reader asked. "Isn't a compromise something that involves both sides giving up something? What is the wife giving up, or for that matter the mother-in-law?"

Good questions. I think the best answer I can give is that compromise in marriage is an ongoing process, a series of compromises---some big, some small---in which the amount "given up" by each spouse may be unequal in any particular case but tends to average out over time.

There's no question that the husband is making a sacrifice in the mother-in-law situation, no matter how it turns out. But his wife is making a sacrifice, too. If marital funds are spent to help support her mother, half of those funds can be considered her money. And if her mother comes to live with them, her space and privacy is being invaded as much as her husband's. The difference, of course, is that the wife is more willing than the husband to make these sacrifices because it involves her mother.

But we all have mothers, and fathers, and other blood relatives who at some point are going to need some degree of help. The issue for that couple today is the wife's mother. But tomorrow, or next week or next year, it may be his mother. The husband's willingness to go the extra mile today will ensure that his wife will do the same when the issue is someone in his family.

As to what the mother-in-law is giving up, the only honest answer is nothing. Nothing, that is, other than her home, her health, her independence, her dignity, and, eventually, her life. My guess is that she made plenty of sacrifices in years past, many of which directly benefited her daughter, and, quite possibly, her son-in-law as well. As I say, sacrifices usually even out over time.

Creative Compromise

2008-11-21T13:30:00.000-08:00

"My mother-in-law is a widow in need of a place to live....My wife wants to take her in....I do NOT want her in my home....My wife and I are coming apart over this...."
(From a letter to Carolyn Hax, syndicated advice columnist)

I regularly read Carolyn Hax's column, Tell me About It, partly because I think she's good, and partly because it gives me plenty of ideas to write about.

The situation described by the letter-writer---a middle aged man in a long marriage who is pretty much saying "it's her or me"---is more common than you might think. With people living well into their 80's and 90's these days, a lot of people in their 40's, 50's, and 60's are facing the difficult issue of what to do when mom or dad can no longer live alone. If the son or daughter is married, the decision becomes even more difficult, because it can't (or shouldn't) be made unilaterally. The son-in-law (or daughter-in-law) who has gotten along tolerably with mom when she lived a hundred miles away, may be less kindly disposed to eating breakfast and dinner with her three hundred and sixty-five days a year, much less being her chauffeur and personal-care attendant.

Carolyn Hax's advice was to exhaust every possible alternative before issuing a veto or bailing out of the marriage, and to be as creative as possible in coming up with those alternatives. I agree. People often assume the worst about some future event, and get so worked up about it that they can't think straight.

Maybe the couple---on their own or with the help of the rest of the family---can afford to pay for, or at least contribute to, the cost of a full-time or part-time aide to keep mom in her home. Even if that's not a permanent solution, it can buy some time and de-fuse the tensions. If she absolutely has to leave the home, now or in the future, presumably the home can be sold. Even in a bad real estate market, every home has some value, and most elderly homeowners own their homes free and clear of mortgage debt.

The proceeds of the sale, coupled with mom's social security checks and possibly other retirement income, can be used to fund assisted living. If assisted living isn't an option, the money could be used to add an in-law suite to the couple's existing home, so that their privacy would still be largely preserved.

If the daughter has brothers and sisters, now is the time to lean on them. The fact that some of them may never have done their fair share shouldn't give them a lifetime exemption. Maybe, as I've written before, the biggest reason they're useless is that no one has ever insisted that they be useful.

To a large extent, creative compromise is the key to a successful marriage. The only marital issue I can think of that doesn't lend itself to compromise is the issue of whether to have children: you either want to have kids or you don't. But that's an issue that, ideally, shouldn't come up in a marriage. It's an issue that should have been resolved by the couple before getting married.

I suppose you could also say that people should take a long, hard look at the family they're marrying into before they walk down the aisle, and realize that "in sickness and in health" might eventually mean their mother-in-law's sickness or health. That may be asking too much of young people, but it should definitely be on the minds of older people who are thinking of re-marrying.

Think Twice Before Confessing

2008-11-15T08:36:00.000-08:00

"Jack had been unfaithful to his wife and was feeling 'crushed' by guilt...He posted an anonymous confession on an online site but still felt the need to confess directly...He broke down at a church service and admitted the truth to his wife, only to discover that she, too, had strayed...."Now, we can talk freely again..."
(From a Time article, "When Confession Takes Place Online")

Well, Jack, you're a lucky guy. If your wife had not also been playing around, her response was more likely to be, Hit the Road, Jack!

The point of the Time article was that a lot of people are posting anonymous confessions on sites like DailyConfession.com and PostSecret.com, and feeling better for it. These online confessions are not necessarily sexual in nature; people confess to everything from shoplifting candy bars to taking sick leave when they weren't sick to hurting their best friend's feelings. All well and good, I suppose. We've all heard that confession is good for the soul, and it's certainly no fun living with guilty feelings that just won't go away.

But when it comes to confessing marital infidelities, I'd recommend limiting it to the online sites. An unprompted confession to one's wife or husband is only asking for trouble. There are plenty of people who feel that, when it comes to adultery, it's one strike and you're out.

Beyond that, confessing directly to the other person can be selfish and callous. The confessor is so focused on wanting to purge his guilt and wanting to feel like a good person again that he ignores the emotional pain his confession is almost certain to inflict.

What if the situation had been a little different, and Jack's wife had said to him: "Jack, I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but the only way I've ever been able to have an orgasm is by thinking about an old boyfriend of mine. I've always felt guilty about this, and I thought you should know. But, really, I do love you. In fact, except for the sex, you're better than him in every way..." I'm sure Jack would be thrilled to hear that.

The truth is, in matters of love and sex we're usually better off being unenlightened. Do we really want to be told everything---the bad and the good---especially if the bad is something over and done with? I say in my book that if you've been unfaithful to your spouse, just shut up about it and resolve never to do it again. Maybe a little residual guilt isn't the worse thing in the world; it might serve as a reminder that extramarital sex isn't all fun and games, nor is it a victimless crime. Confessing to adultery just creates another victim, and this time a truly innocent one.

By all means, post an anonymous confession if you need to, and avail yourself of any confessional relief that your religion may afford. But, before you reveal all to your unsuspecting spouse, remember the words of the writer Taki Theodoracopulos: "We may hurt ourselves with our sins, but we only hurt others with our confessions."

Common Law Confusion

2008-11-07T14:18:00.000-08:00

"I thought that by living together seven years, we had a common law marriage. But when he died I found out I had no rights at all."
(From a recent letter to Dear Abby)

Of all the legalities related to marriage and divorce, common law marriage is the most misunderstood. I'm willing to bet that at least ninety percent of the people who say they have a common law marriage don't have one.

Common law marriage has historically been recognized only in a fairly small number of states, and that number been shrinking in recent years as states have "prospectively" abolished it. (For example, in Pennsylvania no cohabitation arrangement that began after January 1, 2005 can be recognized as a common law marriage). As of right now, only ten states, plus the District of Columbia, recognize "new" common law marriages, and one of those states (New Hampshire) recognizes it only for the purposes of inheritance.

And no state automatically grants common law marriage status solely on the basis of cohabitation for a particular period of time, or on the fact that the couple had children together or owned their home jointly. In the states where common law marriage is permitted, the couple (or, if one person dies, the survivor) has to prove there was an "intent to be married". Proof of intent might mean having to show that you filed joint tax returns, or that you used the same last name, or that you both wore wedding rings. One way or the other, you have to come up with credible evidence that the two of you consistently held yourselves out to the world as a married couple.

If the evidence isn't strong enough, you'll be out of luck in claiming any inheritance or survivor rights that married people are automatically entitled to. You may even wind up fighting your (supposed) common law spouse's relatives in court. For example, if you move in with a man who has a child from a previous marriage or relationship, and he eventually dies without a will, that child may argue in court that the two of you never satisfied the legal requirements of a common law marriage. A surviving spouse is entitled in most jurisdictions to a guaranteed one-third share of the decedent's estate, even if he didn't leave a will. But if you can't prove you were a lawful spouse at the time of his death---common law or otherwise---you get nothing, and the children or other blood relatives would get everything.

Given that in most states a marriage license costs about fifty dollars, people are crazy to rely on vague common law marriage definitions to establish a marital relationship that can have far-reaching implications. If you're truly holding yourselves out as being married, then why not get married formally and not have to worry about it?

I should mention that gay cohabitation arrangements have never been awarded common law marriage status in any state of the country. Now that the door to gay marriage has apparently been closed in California, there may be a legislative effort in common law marriage states to extend the law there to gay couples, but it would probably be a lost cause. Gay marriage may well become an accepted practice in the years ahead, but common law marriage---straight or gay---is a concept that is quickly dying and not likely to be revived.

Some Good Publicity for Divorce Lawyers

2008-11-02T13:39:00.000-08:00

"People assume that as divorce lawyers, we encourage divorce. That is simply not true."
(Willem Gravett, of Gravett & Gravett, Mount Kisco, NY, as quoted in the Westchester Journal News).

Although I'm still officially a member of the Massachusetts bar, I no longer have an active law practice. (And that's fine with me: I've handled enough cases to last two lifetimes. At this point I'd rather spend my time at the keyboard than in the courtroom). But I still get annoyed when lawyers, and especially divorce lawyers, are unfairly criticized.

Case in point: divorce clients who loudly proclaim, once the case is over, that "the only ones who got rich were the lawyers." I must have heard that a hundred times. But in almost every such case, the main reason that the legal fees wound up being so high is that the spouses insisted on fighting each other every inch of the way---often against their lawyers' advice.

When I was still practicing, I would frequently run into lawyers at professional events who had been on the other side of a divorce case from me. Typically, we would shake our heads and say to each other that the two of us could have negotiated a perfectly acceptable settlement in about three hours: a settlement that would have been remarkably close to what the judge eventually ordered after two years' worth of legal fees, not to mention expert witness fees, deposition charges, and court costs.

The last thing a divorce lawyer wants or needs is to be arguing over every pot and pan in the house, or dealing with trumped-up allegations of abuse, neglect, or parental unfitness in general. People may think that lawyers keep coming up with spurious issues so that they can milk the case for all it's worth, but the truth is that most divorce lawyers have more work than they can comfortably handle already.

The reason for that is not just the sheer volume of divorces in our society. It's also because good divorce lawyers get plenty of referrals from other lawyers. I would estimate that only about two percent of practicing lawyers specialize in divorce. Most of the other ninety-eight percent wouldn't touch a divorce case with a ten foot pole. They sense---correctly---that a divorce client is rarely a happy client, no matter how hard you knock yourself out for him or her. Why put up with all the grief when you can refer potential clients to a specialist?

Another case in point: anti-divorce crusaders who find it convenient to blame divorce lawyers for the "epidemic" of divorces in our country. I, myself, actually believe that eighty percent of divorces are unnecessary, and I devote most of my energy these days to trying to help people avoid divorce and achieve satisfying marriages. But I don't blame divorce lawyers for high divorce rates, any more than I blame criminal lawyers for high crime rates or immigration lawyers for high rates of illegal immigration. Divorce lawyers are simply performing their role in the system and giving clients the services that the clients demand.

Believe it or not, divorce lawyers will sometimes try to talk a potential client out of filing for divorce, especially when the person clearly needs time to cool off and think about things. As I mention in my book, I did that myself quite a few times, and I never regretted it. With that in mind, I was delighted to read recently about Willem and Margaretha Grevett, a husband-and-wife team of divorce lawyers who started a website (http://www.newyorkmarriagehelp.com/) devoted to publicizing local resources to help couples try to save their marriages.

The site---and it's a good one---contains articles written by experts in the fields of marriage counseling and child development; an exhaustive list of counselors and other marriage professionals in Westchester County; and links to numerous online resources. Unlike some law firm sites, it is not just a thinly-disguised advertising pitch for the firm's services. Obviously, the Grevetts would be happy to represent people for whom marriage counseling doesn't work, but they sincerely want people to think of divorce as a last resort.

My guess is that there are lawyers like the Grevetts in every state; plenty of them. They may not necessarily have a full-fledged website devoted to marriage enhancement or couples therapy, but they want to give good advice to potential clients---practical advice as well as legal advice---even if that may mean passing up an easy fee. The best lawyers are the ones who look out for their clients' long-term interests. If you consult a divorce lawyer and he or she suggests you hold off filing for a while, or gives you the names of some marriage counselors, you're probably getting good advice and you're certainly dealing with someone who has your long-term interests at heart.

The Pause That Refreshes

2008-10-22T14:38:00.000-07:00

"For solitude sometimes is best society,
And short retirement urges sweet return."
(John Milton, from Paradise Lost)

A few weeks ago, I drove up to Silver City, New Mexico---an old, mile-high mining town that's been transformed into a place with lots of art galleries and funky businesses---and spent a couple of enjoyable nights there. I went alone, my wife being happy to stay home and catch up on her reading. A few weeks before that, she went off by herself to Detroit to visit her niece and her newborn baby, and that was fine with me. I used the time to go hiking and to check out a couple of new restaurants.

My wife and I go to plenty of places together---we're actually great travel companions---but there are times when we recognize that we either need time alone, or one of us wants to go somewhere that the other one has no real interest in. In the case of Silver City, the town reminds me in many ways of Brattleboro, Vermont, where I spent some happy years in the 1970's. My wife, though, doesn't relate to either Brattleboro or Silver City, and there's no particular reason she should. Conversely, I don't relate to Detroit. Her niece is a lovely young woman, but she lives in quite possibly the ugliest, most dispiriting city in America. Just thinking about Detroit puts me in a bad mood.

So, rather than tag along half-heartedly somewhere, or feeling guilty that the other person isn't having fun, we sometimes go our separate ways, and we're both happier for it.

The reason I'm saying all this is that I keep running into married people who seem imprisoned by the notion of togetherness. They go everywhere and do everything together, even when it's quite obvious that at least one of them would rather not be there. (Next time you're in a mall, look at the faces of the married men). Or they "compromise" by coming up with a result that neither of them really wants. (He wants to go camping, she wants to go to the beach, so they wind up in some big-city hotel). This seems crazy to me.

Not only is there nothing wrong with spouses having different interests, there's nothing wrong with acknowledging those differences and acting on them. Obviously, if a couple has no common interests and never goes anywhere together, it wouldn't be much of a marriage. But there's no reason why a weekend apart now and then, or even a longer trip, has to be seen as a threat. In fact, being away a for a while will often make you realize how much you miss your spouse, and how eager you are to tell him or her about the details of your trip.

Mutual trust, of course, is a crucial element in spending time apart. If a wife is worried that her husband will be trying to pick up women on his ski trip, or a husband thinks that his wife's visit to her college roommate is a cover-up for seeing an old boyfriend, it won't work. But if someone is that suspicious---with or without cause---how much trust is there, anyway? And if a person is determined to have extramarital sex, he or she doesn't need to fly a thousand miles to get it. In fact, if a person senses that his spouse won't let him out of her sight for fear of his taking up with someone else, he's probably more likely to misbehave. If he's going to be blamed anyway, the thinking goes, he may as well get something out of it.

In my book, I discuss what I call "unconventional" marriages. For many couples, spending time apart is not especially unconventional, but for other couples it might be. It might even be terrifying. I'm not trying to convince anyone to do something he doesn't want. But I am trying to get people who are stuck in a less-than-satisfying system to think expansively, to try something new, to get reaquainted with themselves, and to return to their home relaxed, refreshed, and with a greater sense of appreciation and purpose.

Taking the Pressure Off First Dates

2008-10-16T08:47:00.000-07:00

"I don't know how willing I would be to go on a date with a stranger."
(Jacqueline Malan, 25, explaining why she goes on "group dates". From a Wall Street Journal article titled "All Together Now")

When I write about dating, I'm usually addressing the concerns of people who are getting back into the dating scene after a divorce or the break-up of a long-term relationship. I'm thinking of people in their 40's or older, who may feel out of place in bars but who find online dating to be baffling, frustrating, and overly time-consuming.

Mid-life singles are far more likely to be looking for a stable, long-term relationship than for a series of flings, and quite rightly. (I think it was Lenny Bruce who said there's nothing more pathetic than an aging pickup artist). But the search for a "suitable" partner can all too easily turn first dates into inquisitions, where each person is bombarding the other with dozens of make-or-break questions and neither person can sit back, relax, and enjoy the moment. Although it's understandable that someone wouldn't want to waste time on a person who's wrong for them, how can anyone make a good impression if he or she feels under attack? So both people go home unsatisfied, and the next day they're even less enthusiastic about repeating the process with another stranger.

A possible solution to this problem comes from a somewhat unlikely source: the Facebook generation. Accurately or not, twenty-something singles are usually portrayed as interested mainly in brief hookups and "friends with benefits" relationships (the "benefit" being sex). But, according to some sociologists, young people---and young women in particular---are disillusioned with casual sex, and wary of "traditional" first dates, where "Will we go to bed tonight or not?" is the unstated subtext.

In response to this disillusionment, a number of group dating websites have sprung up recently. Ignighter.com encourages new members to enroll their friends and their friends-of-friends. Once a critical mass of members is signed up from a particular geographic area, an "ambassador"---a volunteer social director, in essence---will arrange get-togethers such as beer tastings, bowling nights, hiking trips, and other recreational or social events. Whenever possible, members would be invited to events with at least one of their friends, so that no one feels like the odd person out. What they do there is up to them.

Similar sites include teamdating.com, which has 40,000 members, and iamfreetonight.com, which has 70,000. Facebook has an application called Meet New People, which claims over three million users who are eligible to attend group gatherings (hopefully, not all at the same time).

Although these sites are geared toward young adults, my guess is that the average age of their members will gradually rise (just as the average age of Match.com members has gone from 31 to 48 over the past few years). But mid-life singles don't have to wait, or be the oldest person in the room by twenty years. There are plenty of events right now in almost every city or town that are geared to a more "mature" crowd, and that provide much of the same low-pressure group activities that the online sites I mentioned do.

In my own small town of 30,000 people, there are regularly-scheduled events such as Latin dance classes, wine appreciation parties, drop-in current event discussions at coffee shops, photography workshops, and hiking clubs. In a larger city, you could go to similar events seven nights a week and barely be scratching the surface of what is available. Not all of them are just for singles, but, typically, singles constitute a large percentage of such gatherings. In fact, you're probably better off not going to something solely because it's advertised as singles-only, because if you don't meet someone you like at such an event you'll think of it as a waste of time and money. But if it's an activity you truly enjoy, you'll have a good time no matter who else is there.

The other thing I like about interest-oriented group events is that, unlike online dating sites, you actually get to see how a particular person looks, sounds, dresses, and behaves in public. In the online world, out-of-date photographs and misleading, or totally false, descriptions are all too common. Without wasting time corresponding with a person who ultimately disappoints you, or having to barrage him with personal questions on a first date, you can quickly size someone up at a group event without even letting him or anyone else know what you're doing. And if you find someone interesting, you can approach him or her in an unthreatening way, perhaps with a question or comment about the activity that you both, presumably, enjoy.

But I wouldn't start with, "Hey, you hike here often?" Even Lenny Bruce would groan at that one.

The Gift That---Unfortunately---Keeps On Giving

2008-10-06T10:51:00.000-07:00

"A Manhattan lawyer is suing his wife, her lover, and her father, claiming she gave him a venereal disease she contracted while having an affair".
(From a New York Post article, September 21, 2008)

Of all the repercussions that can result from extramarital sex, contracting a sexually transmitted disease, and then passing it on to your spouse, ranks right up there with getting your lover pregnant (or getting pregnant by your lover). But that's what happened to Amy Tanne and her husband, Frederick Tanne.

While looking through his medicine cabinet one day, Mr. Tanne found a herpes-treatment drug that his father-in-law (a physician) had prescribed for Amy. Mr. Tanne demanded to know how Amy could possibly have contracted herpes, since neither one had ever had a sexually transmitted disease previously. She eventually admitted that she had been having an affair with a prominent Westchester County accountant named Robert Stockel, who had presumably given her the disease. Mr. Tanne then had himself tested for herpes and, sure enough, he has it.

At that point, Mr. Tanne, a senior litigation partner at Kirkland & Ellis, a huge (1,400 lawyer) national law firm, decided to sue everyone involved on one legal theory or another. He filed a divorce action against his wife on the grounds of adultery, a separate tort action against Stockel for "knowingly transferring the virus", and another tort claim against his father-in-law and Amy for "conspiring to hide the infidelity and the subsequent infection". In addition to a divorce from Amy, Mr. Tanne is seeking monetary compensation from all three of the defendants for medical bills, lost income, and pain and suffering.

Let me point out here that some of Mr. Tanne's allegations have been denied by the defendants, and it may be many months before the whole story emerges. But the damage has already been done, a lot of it self-inflicted by Mr. Tanne, who apparently has allowed his anger (which is justified, if the allegations are true) to cloud his judgment.

As an experienced litigation lawyer, Mr. Tanne knows that court filings are generally considered public records, unless they are specifically "sealed" by the judge assigned to the case. Given the juicy nature of the case, and the fact that the parties are all high-income, high-profile professionals, it was eminently foreseeable that a tabloid like the Post would ferret out the story and have a field day with it (the headline was "Cuckold 'Sore' at His Wife").

My guess is that Mr. Tanne is less interested in getting a monetary judgment against the defendants---he probably makes well over a million dollars a year at his firm---as he is in punishing them and making life difficult for them. As I said, he has a right to be angry. In fact, he has a right to be very angry; people have gotten killed for less. But just as Mr. Tanne's lawyerly restraint kept him from showing up at Stockel's office with a loaded gun, that same restraint should have kept him from filing legal actions that will wind up humiliating himself more than they humiliate the defendants.

Sadly, clouded judgments and rash actions are all-too-common in divorce cases. It doesn't matter if the person is a lawyer, a doctor, or a Fortune 500 CEO; anger and the lust for revenge will undo decades of professional training. It happened a while back in the Jack Welch divorce case. Welch, one of the most famous corporate executives of our time, had an affair, filed for divorce, but then became an absolute madman when it came to opposing his wife's financial demands. He wound up paying her anyway, but he lost not only a lot of money but a lot of respect among his peers that had taken decades to build up.

The Post article implied that another attorney was representing Mr. Tanne. That's certainly a good thing---we all know the adage about lawyers representing themselves---but I have to wonder whether that lawyer really thought it was a good idea to file the various lawsuits or whether he just gave Mr. Tanne what he wanted. A good divorce lawyer always needs to consider his client's long-term interests. That may mean telling the client (in a diplomatic way, if possible) what he doesn't want to hear. It may also mean talking the client out of revenge-based attacks. This isn't easy to do, especially when the client is a lawyer himself, but it's necessary if the lawyer wants to keep the client from being called a "cuckold" in the newspaper.

The other obvious lesson from this unhappy story is that, in this day and age, if you're going to risk your marriage and your future by having an affair, you shouldn't compound the risk by having unprotected sex. Amy Tanne probably thought that with an educated, high-income professional like Robert Stockel she had nothing to worry about. She was wrong. And now her lapse of judgment, coupled with a very different lapse of judgment on her husband's part, has turned a private affair into a very public spectacle.

Paul Newman's Example

2008-09-29T15:15:00.000-07:00

"Sexiness wears thin after a while, and good looks fade. But to be married to a man who makes you laugh every day? Now that's a treat."
(Joanne Woodward)

A lot has been said these past few days about Paul Newman. He was indeed a rare and remarkable man: an exceptional actor, an amateur race car driver who held his own with professional racers half his age, a businessman who gave away every penny of profit----and there were billions of those pennies---to charity.

And he was also very much a husband and family man. Not only was there never a hint of scandal in the entire fifty years of his marriage to Joanne Woodward, but everything he ever said about her and his kids, to his dying day, reflected great love and pride. It was obvious to anyone listening that his family meant far more to him than his fame, his Oscar, and his financial success.

I don't pretend to know anything about what Paul Newman was like in private, but Joanne Newman's quote implies that he was always making her laugh. My guess is that he was not so much a joke-teller as a guy who simply saw the humor in everything: someone who would use humor to get other people (and maybe himself, too) out of a bad mood.

It is a treat, as Joanne Woodward put it, to be married to a person like that. Unfortunately, the reason it's a treat is that it's a relatively rare occurrence. Truth be told, most of us don't make enough of an effort to put smiles on the faces of our spouse or family members. We tend to be absorbed in our own thoughts and problems, and to see other people---even the people we love---as issues to deal with, items on the to-do list. We may be good at solving problems, but not so good at doing the little things (such as keeping things light and loose) that might prevent some of those problems from happening again.

Although there are people who seem to be natural comedians, you don't need advanced stand-up skills to make your spouse laugh (just as you don't need movie star looks to take his or her breath away). All you need is the right attitude. Your attitude should be that life is tough but we can still have fun; that there's a humorous side to nearly everything; that laughter is the best way to break the tension and bring people closer.

Maybe the way to start is to have a mental to-do list that says: 1. Don't take yourself or your problems so seriously. 2. Remember who's really important in your life. 3. Be aware of moods and situations that call for a little humor. 4. Look for something amusing to say, and say it (no matter how silly it may sound). 4. If all else fails, poke fun at yourself. 5. Repeat tomorrow.

Few of us will ever be as talented and accomplished as Paul Newman was, but there's no reason we can't have the kind of marriage that he and his wife had: a marriage notable not only for its long duration but for its laughter, fun, and genuine humanity.

Marriage by the Numbers

2008-09-22T16:18:00.000-07:00

"Nearly 70% of the men surveyed said they 'never' think about leaving their wives, whereas nearly half of the women said they think about leaving their husbands occasionally---and sometimes daily."
(From Parade magazine's 9/21/08 Poll on American Marriage)

I'm not necessarily a big believer in polls and surveys. Many surveys are flawed from the start, by failing to get a statistically-significant sampling of different ages and demographic groups, or by asking "loaded" or poorly-worded questions. And even when everything is conducted properly, people don't always answer truthfully, especially when the questions are about love and sex.

But usually you can learn at least something from surveys. I found the Parade results interesting, because in one important respect they confirm and quantify what previous surveys have strongly suggested: that wives are considerably more likely to be unhappy in their marriages than husbands are.

Look at some of the findings:

When asked, "Do you ever think about leaving your spouse?", twice as many women as men answered "Often" or "Daily".
When asked, "Overall, which best describes how you feel about your marriage?", twice as many women as men answered "I'm miserable".
When asked, "If you had to do it again, would you marry the same person?", a much-higher percentage of women than men answered "I'd try to do better", or "Definitely not".
When asked, "Why don't you have sex with your spouse more often?", 17% of women (but only 12% of men) answered "I've lost sexual interest in my spouse".

I mentioned in a previous blog article that, nationwide, 75% of divorces are filed by women. Not every unhappily-married wife will seek a divorce, and those who do often put up with their frustrations for years before taking that step. But the women who eventually say "Enough is enough" are the ones who today are "Thinking about it often".

When you look at the Parade results from a different angle, it's clear that many husbands are clueless when it comes to their wives' dissatisfactions. For example, men were more likely than women to answer "Yes" to "We talk often and communicate well", and nearly 50% less likely to say "We don't talk to each other enough".

Men should pay more attention to survey results such as these, and realize that just because they're satisfied doesn't mean that there isn't a big problem developing. Too many men are living in a dream world, a fool's paradise, and when reality strikes some day it's not going to be pretty. They'll be like the thousands of men who said in a different survey (one conducted by AARP a couple of years ago) that they never saw the divorce coming. You can almost always see it coming, if you take your blinders off.

Are You SURE the Thrill is Gone?

2008-09-17T09:00:00.000-07:00

"The length of our passions no more rests with us than the length of our lives".
(Francois de la Rochefoucauld, 1613-1680)

La Rochefoucauld was not only one of the great writers of his era, he was also an uncommonly perceptive observer of people and their behavior. I often turn to him for practical wisdom, but I have to differ with him, at least in part, about our inability to control the length of our passions.

Yes, it's true that our passions can ebb and flow over time. I'm sure everyone reading this can recall with embarrassment, or even horror, at least one former lover. Somehow, that person who was once the focus of our life now makes us shake our head and wonder what we could possibly have been thinking. And we can probably come up with a few others who were nice enough but who eventually drifted out of our lives without leaving much of a trace.

There's no question that passion can be stirred by illusion, and that illusions are plentiful and powerful when a relationship is new. But it's a mistake to think that passion is something that just happens to us, something we have no control over, rather than something that to a great degree we can sustain through our efforts.

This is a common, but dangerous, mistake in long-term marriages. A lot of people---particularly romantic and passionate people---have affairs or give up on their marriages simply because they don't feel the thrill they used to feel. When it's missing, they assume it's gone forever. I've had divorce clients tell me: "I love him, but I'm not in love with him". I wouldn't tell anyone that she has to live out her days with someone she's no longer in love with (although if that's her only reason for getting divorced, she's going to get heavy criticism from all quarters, including her own friends and family, especially if there are kids involved and he's a good father). But I would urge people in that situation to first ask themselves if they've made every reasonable effort to keep their passion alive.

I think what happens is that people neglect their passions and then call it fate. They get lazy about expressing affection and appreciation, or they expect the other person to express it first or to be just like them in the way they express it. They get bogged down---individually and as a couple---in the often-dreary details of making a living and managing a household. They have lifeless conversations and pointless arguments, and they stop associating their spouse with anything pleasurable or fun.

This is not a happy state to be in, but the choice doesn't have to be between dying a slow death and starting over with a new person. It's possible, in a sense, to start over with the same person. My guess is that in many ways your spouse is still the same person you fell in love with. He may have gained weight, he may get into bad moods more often, he may not be what he once was in bed, but his fundamental qualities---the things that made you passionate for him way back when---are probably intact, although they may be dormant. If he was intelligent then, he's still intelligent now (but maybe he needs some stimulation to bring it out). If he was funny then, he could still be funny now (but maybe he needs to know his humor is appreciated). If he was kind and thoughtful then, he probably hasn't become a self-absorbed narcissist (although he may exasperate you at times).

The goal is to remember how he once was---and how the relationship once was---and figure out how to get the feelings back. At first, you'll probably have to shoulder most of the burden; your spouse may not immediately understand or appreciate what you're trying to do. But stick with it for at least a few months. Be realistic: your marriage didn't go downhill overnight and it's not going to get back on track overnight. But if your passions were strong and not based totally on illusion, and if the two of you haven't done any irreparable harm to each other over the years, you should be able to get those passions back and keep them there.

Defusing Election Year Tensions

2008-09-11T14:07:00.000-07:00

"People look at us as if we're opposites. We're not. We're actually very similar people. We're both advocates. We're both passionate. We both like a good, fair fight. My opposite is someone who doesn't have a philosophy of life, who doesn't get fired up over anything".
(Mary Matalin, in salon.com)

Because we live in a time when politics are increasingly polarized and no one listens to anyone with a differing opinion, we tend to be fascinated by those couples who seem to transcend ideology. For years now, high-profile Republican consultant, Mary Matalin, and her husband, high-profile Democratic consultant James Carville, have agreed to disagree on politics, without any apparent harm to their relationship. And Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and his wife, Maria Shriver, seem to be getting along fine despite his being a Republican and her being not only a Democrat but a member of the Kennedy family.

What is especially interesting about these two marriages is that all four people had fully-formed political views by the time they married. They weren't kids when they met. They didn't start out together as, say, young progressives or young conservatives, and then drift off in different directions over the years. They knew what they were getting into from the start.

My guess is that there are a lot more marriages of political opposites than we might imagine, or at least marriages where there is an issue or two on which the spouses disagree. Many people do, of course, evolve in unpredictable ways as they get older. And people are not always ideologically consistent. A couple might agree on abortion rights or charter school vouchers, but disagree on capital punishment or mortgage foreclosure relief. My own congresswoman is considered very liberal on almost every social issue, but she owns a Glock 9 mm. handgun and is a regular at the shooting ranges whenever she's back here in Arizona.

People who have an opposite opinion on a particular issue may actually have a similar underlying goal or philosophy about that issue; their difference may be only in how to achieve the goal. In the gun ownership example, people on both sides of the issue would say that their major concern is safety. Handgun owners believe that their safety---and often the safety of other innocent people---is enhanced by ready access to a loaded gun. Handgun opponents believe that guns injure or kill more innocent people than they protect, because of careless storage or improper use. The two groups may never agree on gun laws, but they would agree, if they thought about it, that they have a common concern for safety.

Finding that underlying philosophical agreement is crucial if you and your spouse don't see eye to eye. It's almost always there if you can put your prejudices aside and look hard enough. It's also crucial to communicate about the issue in a respectful way: no yelling, no sarcasm, no name-calling, no sulking. Explain your points clearly, but don't necessarily try to convert your spouse; it will only make you feel frustrated and angry if the conversion doesn't happen (I should say when it doesn't happen, because instantaneous political conversions are almost nonexistent). Learn to accept that reasonable people can differ. Inject humor into the discussion, if possible. And if all else fails, try saying: "We'll probably never agree, but I still love you".

But the best outcome of all is to recognize, as Mary Matalin does, that passionate people attract passionate people. They may not always agree, but they feed off each other's energy, and in the end they're closer to each other because of it. So feel free to disagree with your spouse, but do it the right way. And try not to lord it over your spouse when your candidate wins.

Making Life Easier, One Day at a Time

2008-09-03T08:33:00.000-07:00

"What do we live for, if not to make life less difficult for each other?"
(George Eliot, English novelist, 1819-1880)

As you may know, "George Eliot" was the pen name of Mary Ann Evans, who began writing at a time when women writers were not taken seriously by the Victorian literary establishment. Today, she and her contemporaries, the Bronte sisters, are probably the most admired novelists of their era, praised by modern critics for their psychologically astute characterizations and their quietly powerful prose.

The line I quoted is a good example of that astuteness and quiet power. Like most profound statements, it seems so simple, so self-evident, once we hear it. Of course we're here to make life easier for each other. What could be more obvious? Well, if it's so obvious, why does making life easier seem like such a rare quality these days? Why do so many people---in marriages, families, workplaces, and just about everywhere else---seem determined to do just the opposite: to make life as difficult as possible for the people who should matter most to them?

We could speculate all day about the possible explanations---the narcissism and self-indulgence of celebrity culture; an economy that rewards individual achievement over communal betterment; the general breakdown of manners---but it's more important to implement a solution than to worry about the cause. You or I may not be able to stop others from acting like self-absorbed jerks, but we can start changing our own attitudes and behaviors, beginning right now.

If you're married or in a committed relationship, make it a habit to ask yourself every morning: "What can I do today to ease the burden for that special person in my life?" Chance are, the answer will be something that's right in front of your eyes; something that requires minimal planning, takes only a few minutes to do, and costs nothing. But chances are it will also be something whose value will far exceed the effort.

If you're a man, do one chore or errand---just one---that your wife normally does, and do it without being asked or making a big deal of it. It could be loading or unloading the dishwasher, or doing the laundry, or watering the plants. It could be letting your wife sleep a bit longer while you make breakfast. It could be filling up her car with gas so she won't have to get her hands dirty on the way to the office. Anything!

And after you've done that one thing, give your wife the gift of your undivided attention. Pour her a glass of wine after she gets home from work or before you go to bed, sit down with her, and listen to what she says and how she says it. Take a genuine interest in how her day went. Learn to be sympathetic but uncritical. Resist the temptation to tell her what she did wrong or how she should do it next time; just be there for her.

Women are usually better at doing things for others on a day-to-day basis, but they sometimes build up a lengthy list of projects and issues to discuss with their husband, and then dump it all on him at the worst possible time. Trust me when I say that if he's a big football fan, he's not going to want to rearrange furniture in the middle of the third quarter, or discuss plans for your daughter's wedding when the game is going into overtime. There's something about sports on TV that induces a trance-like state in men, and you break that trance at your own risk. If you're a sports fan yourself, by all means join him on the couch; the game can be a great form of husband-wife bonding. But, otherwise, make his life a little easier by refilling the chip bowl once in a while and letting him enjoy the game in peace.

Sometimes, though, men don't want to be left alone. If your husband is bothered by something and clearly needs to talk, don't make him wait until you've tended to everyone else's needs first. Unless your kids are very young or very sick, there's nothing wrong with telling them you need to talk to Daddy for a few minutes before you read to them or take them somewhere. It's not uncommon for men to feel that they're second class citizens in their own homes. They're not likely to verbalize those feelings---men don't like to verbalize any feelings that make them appear hurt or "needy"--- but those feelings can lead to all sorts of problems if they're habitually ignored or belittled.

Daily acts of thoughtfulness and attention may not guarantee a stress-free marriage, but when the stress does come you'll have a deep reservoir of gratitude, love, and mutual good will to draw from. With any luck, there'll still be plenty left over after the stress has been forgotten.

The Eight-Week Marriage

2008-08-25T16:18:00.000-07:00

"Chris Katten Files for Legal Separation from Wife of Eight Weeks".
(Headline in People Online)

I said last week that the sexual and marital foibles of politicians will always give people like me plenty to write about. I could, of course, have said the same about show business celebrities. Case in point: the Chris Katten-Sunshine Tutt legal separation.

Former Saturday Night Live star Katten met supermodel Tutt at a party three years ago, got engaged eighteen months later, got married eighteen months after that, and then split up---permanently, it appears---before the ink was dry on their marriage certificate. Katten was the one who filed, citing only "irreconcilable differences". According to his publicist, Katten will eventually be seeking a divorce.

This kind of thing is by no means unheard of. When I did divorce mediation at the Maricopa Superior Court in Phoenix, I met two or three couples who had filed for legal separation or divorce after only a month of marriage, and probably two dozen more who had decided to throw in the towel before their first anniversary. Although my job was not that of marriage counselor, we did have a social work staff at the court that could offer assistance in such cases, and I always tried to explore with the couple whether counseling might help. Sometimes a couple would avail themselves of the help, but, more often than not, their minds were made up. (Or at least one person's mind was made up; in a no-fault divorce state, all it takes is one spouse to say the marriage is over, and the diviorce has to be granted).

Those cases have always bothered me. I wrote in my book that, unless you discover after the marriage that your spouse is gay, or an abuser, or married you for fraudulent purposes, you normally need at least three years---probably closer to five---before you can honestly say you've given your marriage a fair trial. Anything short of that is a premature abandonment or a surrender to panic, not entirely unlike leaving a baby on the church steps in the middle of the night.

It takes a while to adjust to another person, to learn how to deal with conflict, and to form a mature understanding of whether the future rewards are likely to outweigh the present problems. Reaching that point requires a lot of observation, a lot of thinking, a lot of talking, a lot of patience, and a lot of humor. If, after all that, a person's decision is to make the break, it's still a sad decision but it's likely to be the right one. But there's simply no way that anyone can make a sound decision about a marriage after eight weeeks or eight months.

I should also point out in connection with the Katten-Tutt matter that a legal separation is not a pre-requisite to divorce. You can be legally separated without getting a divorce, and you can get divorced without having been legally separated. Most people who file for legal separation, however, wind up getting divorced within a year or two afterward.

In a legal separation, the court can pretty much do everything it would do in a divorce---i.e., split property and debts, order spousal maintenance and/or child support, make child custody and parenting time decisions---except order that the marriage be dissolved. In other words, the couple is still legally married for purposes of tax filing status, inheritance rights, eligibility for health insurance coverage, and similar marriage-related benefits. (And, of course, they can't get remarried if they are only legally separated).

Legal separation can be a useful option for people whose religion forbids divorce, or for people who want a court-ordered framework to live within while they're negotiating whether to stay married or make a permanent split. But couples who have definitely decided to call it quits may as well skip the legal separation and just file for divorce. In most states, filing for divorce after being granted a legal separation requires additional court costs and attorney fees, not to mention statutory waiting periods and other delays.

But the important message here is that a decision to terminate a marriage shouldn't be a hasty one. If you've only been married a short time, find a marriage counselor before you run to the courthouse. Learn to understand that conflict is normal whenever two people share a home, a bed, and a checking account. Figure out a way to channel the conflict into something positive. It can be done, but it will take more time than Chris Kattan gave it.

A Sad Story, and an Unnecessary One

2008-08-19T09:10:00.000-07:00

"When will they ever learn,
When will they ever learn?"
(Pete Seeger, "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?")

I have said more than once that this is not a political blog. But a while back, I did have a few things to say about the arrogance and stupidity of Elliot Spitzer. And just last week I wrote about spousal abuse allegations involving a prominent Arizona state representative. And today I'm going to address the John Edwards situation. It's still not a political blog; it's just that---in matters of sex, marriage, and divorce---politicians seem determined to give me plenty of material to write about.

Let me start by mentioning an earlier scandal that should have served as a cautionary tale to Senator Edwards. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich also had an affair with a campaign aide while his wife was suffering from cancer. Gingrich, though, went one step further, and had his wife served with divorce papers two days after her surgery, while she was still in her hospital bed. Nice guy, especially given that his wife had worked two jobs to put him through graduate school. When the details came to light, Gingrich was, justifiably, raked over the coals by the press and even by fellow-Republicans. Apart from everything else, it was a poor career move: Gingrich's marital misdeeds have been dredged up whenever he's hinted that he might run for office again.

Did Edwards learn anything from all that? Apparently not. By cheating on one of the most admired and sympathetic women in the country, he lost in an instant whatever credibility he may have had as a politician and as a man. And, amazingly, he's making things even worse by continuing to deny that he's the father of his lover's baby. If Andrew Jones---an Edwards aide who is married and the father of three kids---is really the father, as he claims to be, then he's the first married man in recorded history to admit to paternity in the absence of any testing (especially when the mother had been sexually involved with at least one other man).

Edwards's implausible denials are only ensuring that the mess he created will drag on until the paternity issue is conclusively resolved by DNA evidence. In the meantime, his thirty-plus year marriage limps along, and Elizabeth Edwards is forced to spend her remaining days answering questions a wife should never have to answer.

(Ironically, during her struggles with cancer, Elizabeth Edwards never wanted to be portrayed as a victim. But now she'll be remembered as a victim of a different kind).

I wrote in my book that I have a certain sympathy for those who hope to find in an affair the respect, appreciation, and affection that they're not getting at home. There are, to be sure, better ways of getting respect, appreciation, and affection, but the motivation to look elsewhere can be understandable when frustrations have been mounting year after year.

But I don't have any sympathy for people whose motives for adultery are grounded in ego gratification and an overarching sense of entitlement. In their minds, the rules don't apply to them. Like superheroes, they are larger than life; they're known and loved by millions; they're indestructible. Or they are until the National Enquirer gets on the case.

To a lot of people, the only moral of this and similar stories is that politicians are a bunch of lying s.o.b.'s who don't care who gets hurt as long as their appetites are fed and their egos massaged. Although there's some truth to that, I think there's a more basic and universal message to take away. And that is: actions have consequences. Whether you're a big-time politician or a guy who works in an auto body shop, if you're married to one person and go to bed with someone else, there will be consequences. You may not have to confess your sins on national TV, you may not see your career go up in smoke, but you'll have to deal with some unpleasant issues...maybe some very unpleasant issues. It's almost never worth the risk. In most affairs, the pleasures are momentary but the repercussions are endless.