theage.com.au

Dating a daddy's girl

Pic: Jessica Simpson, a typical daddy's girl

Over-spoilt, over-sensitive, over-bearing... when it comes to dating a daddy's girl, men-in-the-know reckon you'd better be prepared for what's in store ... But are these women unfairly pre-judged?

"UNUSUALLY close to her father ... typically spoiled and "bratty," snarls the Urban Dictionary when it comes to defining the archetypal daddy's girl.

We've all heard of her: she's the gal who puts her father on a pedestal, refuses to date any other men that don't live up to her doting daddy and if the men she dates don't admire, praise, dote and lavish her constantly, they're dumped by the wayside for another poor gent that will succumb to her every whim.

Men, think a daddy's girl has fallen in love with you for your charming personality and superstar looks? Think again. Urban Dictionary goes on to explain that she usually falls for "a push-over kinda guy that will treat her like her dad does".

In other words you've been duped to be his replacement. And if you ever want to be truly accepted into the family (which you most likely never will), then you'll have to do a whole lot of sucking up. And forget any licentious behaviour or you'll be shoved aside quicker than yesterday's leftovers ...

Blokes hoping to court a daddy's girl, it might not be so hard after all. That's if you look anything like her father. That's right gents: research has proved that women who get along well with their dads tend to date men who resemble their pops.

Through extensive "daddy's girl" research, scientists at Durham University have discovered evidence to support the evolutionary idea that "sexual imprinting" (where sexual preferences are based on parental characteristics), prevalently occurs on modern relationships.

The study found that women who have had good relationships with their fathers, will tend to date men who look similar to their dads. And it isn't a subconscious thing; a recent iVillage poll found the majority of female respondents concurred with the findings.

Asked whether their choice in men was influenced by their relationship with their father, the women polled responded with an overwhelming "yes!"

While I used to think this type of gal (and we're talking the extreme version here), only existed in the minds of Hollywood producers and Jennifer Aniston characters, a recent encounter with a bona fide "daddy's girl" left me wondering if men really have any hope in hell when it comes to courting one.

"I'm going to be single forever," she tells me over brunch when I ask her why she keeps dumping all her dates. "It's because I'm looking for a guy that will match up to my dad and none of them ever do." Hmph.

And even if she does find a bloke to match up to her whopping expectations, is there really room for two men in her life? Perhaps not.

But like my Single Boy Friend Andy recently mused, "If you do meet a daddy's girl, make sure you move her to another city if you don't want any daddy trouble ..."

What do you think? And do women go for men who look like their fathers?

- Samantha Brett
- More of ASK SAM
- More AGE blogs

• Posted by Samantha Brett at 12:00 AM
• Comments (29)

Does marriage ruin your sex life?

Single life: loads of sex. Married life: none at all. Welcome to the apprehensive male psyche, where their impervious view of marriage is ruining its case ...

"Everyone knows that getting married ruins your sex life," my friend Jack mused after witnessing his best buddy tie the knot. "Men know that as soon as you give a girl a ring, she stops giving it so willingly. She just does it to get the man, and once she has him, the well dries up pretty fast."

I was a little stunned at his musings but my attempt to offer a counter argument quickly fell flat. "But doesn't it mean that by living together and being in love you can have it more?" I asked.
"Not when there's works and laundry and kids involved," he scoffed.

While I've heard time and time again about the belief that "married life equals no sex", (although the jury is out on how many of the 7.9 million Australian marriages this affects), I'd never quite heard a man be so open and honest about his fear of it becoming a reality. Besides, don't young married couples have a vigorous bedroom life? (If my neighbours in the next apartment are anything to go by, the proof is in the pudding!)

The married versus single sex life is an age-old question and it seems every singleton who values their hanky panky finds themselves asking the big question before they consider tying the knot: will marriage ruin my sex life?

Hence many are choosing to forgo the ceremonial stuff altogether in hope of prolonging the honeymoon period in their relationship.

Others are taking other sorts of drastic measures, like Lenny Kravitz, who recently made a promise to forgo sex before marriage altogether.

"It's just a promise I made until I get married," he told Spin Magazine. "Where I'm at in life, the women have got to come with something else, not just the body, but the mind and spirit. It usually trips them out, but that's the way it's going to be. I'm looking at the big picture."

Trippy indeed. (Although I've heard many blokes attempt to use that line to actually get into a woman's pants in the first place. And apparently it works wonders!)

But perhaps my mate Jack, and that infamous Newsweek cover story titled No Sex Please, We're Married is wrong.

After all, a recent study actually succeeded in busting the myth that women aren't as into it as men, proving that it's actually when women are in committed relationships that men and women actually share similar attitudes towards sex.

And in case the blokes are scoffing at the findings, they actually have scientific legs! Carried out by researchers at the University of Florida and published in the journal titled Sex Roles, it seems while women might not be so into it on a casual basis (although some readers of this blog would vigorously disagree), the study proved that women don't hold back when "romantic feelings" are involved.

The researchers reckon that society dictates that single men are expected to think and want sex more than women and according to Paul Perrin (one of the study's researchers), "what society tells us we should be often translates into actions".

Yet through the study, he discovered this: "Once they enter a relationship, however, the pressure on men to have sex is not as strong and the pressure on women to not have sex goes away."

And according to the infamous Newsweek's story, a study carried out in 2002 by the National Opinion Research Centre at the University of Chicago, actually found that married folks have 6.9 more sexual encounters a year than those who haven't tied the knot.

So perhaps Jack is wrong after all. But as Erica Jong once said, "Yes, wild passionate sex exists ... But it is occasional. And it is not the only thing that keeps people together. Talking and laughing keep couples together. Shared goals keep couples together."

What do you think keeps couples together? Who wants more sex in your relationship? Do you think marriage ruins your sex life? What do you think of Lenny Kravitz's promise? And what's the real reason some men are so afraid of marriage?

PS. Look out for Sam Tuesday morning on the Today Show talking about why men ogle!

- Samantha Brett
- More of ASK SAM
- More AGE blogs

• Posted by Samantha Brett at 12:00 AM
• Comments (51)

ASK SAM FRIDAY: Does a one-night stand mean it's all over?

This week's question comes from reader Gen with a typical post-holiday puzzle ...

"I happened to have a one night stand on NYE (my first one) and this guy has continued to message me and I've been messaging him back. I am feeling like I really could like him and I may have ruined any chances of something deeper because I slept with him the way I did. Is there any way this could work? Is this salvageable? - Gen."

During the holiday season, I have no doubt many of you took part in copious amounts of flirting, boozing, fooling around and fornicating. Of course when sand, surf and the silly season is underway, coupled-up with copious amounts of cocktails and cleavage on display, things are bound to get frisky.

Yet once the silly season is over, what are the consequences of all those one-night stands? Will you ever get a follow-up phone call? Will you ever see them again? Or should you resign yourself to forgetting all about your holiday fling for good ...

Fueling the casual sex debate is a comment relayed to me by my serial-dating mate Jed. After his intense three-year relationship went bust, he decided to give the "casual thing" a go for the first time ever during this holiday season. When I asked him if during his myriad dalliances he'd met anyone special, he scoffed at the question and replied with a curt, "How am I ever meant to respect anyone who comes home with me on the first night?"

Confusing stuff, especially since thanks to the sexual revolution, modern women are being led to believe that it's sexy to be brash and bold when it comes to sex. As Maureen Dowd, New York Times columnist and author of Are Men Necessary? writes in her tome, "It took only a few decades to create a brazen new world where the highest ideal is to acknowledge your inner slut. I am woman; see me strip."

Dowd continues: "We had decades of Victorian prudery, when women were not supposed to like sex. Then we had the pill and zipless encounters, when women were supposed to have the same animalistic drive as men. Then it was discovered - shock, horror! - that men and women are not alike in their desires. But zipless morphed into hookups, and the more one-night stands the girls had ..... the grumpier they got."

Is that true? Are women forcing themselves into being luscious objects of modern male affection because they believe it will make men happy? And does everyone turn out to be miserable in the end?

To help us with this ASK SAM quandary, I decided to enlist the skills of uber-dating coach Alex Nova, one of Australia's leading date coaches, to give Gen a reality check on her sordid situation. (Although judging from Alex's responses, it might not be so sordid after all.)

Me: What do men think of a woman who have a one-night stands with them?

Alex: Most guys out there are keen on one night stands so a woman who is up for one is going to be welcomed by most men. The only problem with this is that a large number of men (after the one night stand occurs) tend to look "no further" as far as the relationship goes. In a nutshell, most men will think positively about a woman who had a one night stand with them. However, a large number will not consider a serious relationship down the line because "the chase" is gone and there is no thrill in chasing a woman that they have already slept with.

Me: Does a one night stand ruin a future chance in a relationship?

Alex: In my opinion, a one night stand will hamper any possibility of a serious relationship in the future. This off course can be argued. We need to define a "relationship" in this instance. Are we talking about a purely sexual relationship aka "friends with benefits" or a traditional relationship where "boy meets girl"? If it is the latter then most men will feel unchallenged and will tend to look for some other woman who sets their hearts racing by playing "hard to get' or any other mind games to keep men interested in a long term relationship.

Me: What is the phenomenon of chemistry and run? Why does it happen?

Alex: Let's face it, sex is a physical act, being hungry and thirsty are also physical acts. Some people seem to think otherwise, which in my opinion is misguided. Sex and love are completely two different things. In most cases when a man has a one night stand with a woman, he simply satisfies his sexual appetite and once that is done he wants to leave. The same can apply to women who are also merely interested in the sexual act to please themselves. To put it bluntly, during one night stands, we look at our sexual partner as a "piece of meat". In the end, the only people that usually get hurt by one night stands are those who are expecting more than just sex out of them.

Me: How can women make a guy see her as a serious date potential from the first few dates?

Alex: I would suggest avoiding sex in the first few dates. Men like the thrill of chasing women, as much as we hate to admit it. It turns us on and keeps us coming back for more. However, you need to be careful not to come across as someone who is "waiting for sex until marriage" type of person. This turns a lot of men off the relationship to begin with. During the first few dates spend some time together in public places and not inside his bedroom or his car. You really need to get to know each other and being out and about is the best way to achieve that. Save sex for later, you will enjoy it much more then anyway. A while later if you feel that the relationship is getting a bit more serious, you can introduce your new man to your close friends.

What do you think? Are women supposed to have the same animalistic drive as men? Do one night stands merely make us all more miserable? Share with us your views of the modern hookup (and those that have gone wrong!)...

PS. Stuck with nothing to do this Valentine's Day? Why not look for love and raise money for cancer at the same time? CanTeen is organising the Great Australian Charity Speed Date which will see 400 singles speed dating up a storm!

All funds raised will go towards the continued delivery of CanTeen's services, camps and tailored programs. It's being held Wednesday 13th February 2008 at the Plaza Ballroom, Collins Street, Melbourne. Tickets are $85 and include drinks and canapés and you can find details through the CanTeen website.

Have a great weekend and happy dating! Sam.xx

- Samantha Brett
- More of ASK SAM
- More AGE blogs

• Posted by Samantha Brett at 12:00 AM
• Comments (99)

High maintenance women: too much work?

Quick question for the men: Have you ever dated someone who treats you like dirt, refuses to lift a finger around the house and never gets out her wallet when it's time to pay the bills (or ever remembers to thank you for doing so)? How about someone who Ignores your mates, pooh poohs your job, disses your fashion sense and refuses to meet your mum? (And you wonder what you ever liked about her in the first place?)

Introducing the enigma that's bound to prickle the spines of sensitive Aussie blokes everywhere: the high maintenance woman.

While a copious amount of literature has been written on expounding the notion of why the heck women fall for the bad boy (especially when there are so many sugary-sweet men out and about who will willingly watch chick flicks, go shoe shopping and actually greet our friends), when it comes to why men fall for the bad girl, many of us are still in the dark ...

"I am always bewildered as to why men pick the high maintenance divas over someone like me," down-to-earth low-maintenance television producer Kate asks me over cocktails one night. We're surreptitiously observing the men in the room (for research purposes, of course), who all seem to be eyeing out one particularly highly maintained femme sporting false eyelashes, copious amounts of fake tan, pistachio-painted toenails and coiffed Dolly Parton-esque locks. (All the while we're being completely ignored as the men vie for her attention.)

"It must be the same theory as to why women always fall for the bad boys," Kate hastily concludes between sips of her mojito. Perhaps her theory isn't too far fetched after all.

Like the bad-boy theory which suggests women are instinctively drawn to men that ooze testosterone and masculinity, according to Liz H. Kelly, author of Smart Man Hunting, men are drawn to high-maintenance divas because men "like to fix problems". This inevitably comes down to the caveman theory: men are hardwired to be more attracted to women who need to be cared for and looked after rather than the Beyonces of the world, who don't need men to buy them diamonds or pay their bills.

Then there's the "eye-candy" theory, which proves that men fall for the high-maintenance diva over the girl next door because she looks so darn good, all the freakin' time.

Anthropologist Dr Helen Fisher, who has has conducted extensive research on gender differences, concedes.

"Courtship is all about display," she says. "And if there was ever a time when women needed to display themselves, it's now. For hundreds of years we lived in small social units where everybody knew everyone else. But these days, women move around a lot and, as a result, they're looking for any little thing to catch the eye of the right guy. As Mae West said, 'it is better to be looked over than overlooked'."

But who the heck has the time, the money or the effort?

"Personally, I don't know how they do it," muses Kate. "I cherish my chocolate, my tracky daks and my thongs (not the g-string type but flip flops) way too much to fall into that category." I hastily concur.

Another more sage theory which attempts to uncover the reason men fall for high-maintenance women, is that men believe that by dating her, he's going to get wild, uninhibited sex on tap whenever he so desires. Perhaps he's been watching way too many episodes of Entourage to form a realistic opinion on the matter, (or he's been married for way too long), but either way he soon discovers that the more high-maintenance the diva, the less likely she is to want to ruin her makeup by getting jiggy with it between the sheets (or so I've been told).

Proof in the sexual pudding as to why men like to fall for the high-maintenance diva in attempt to get more action between the sheets is my recent conversation with author Geoff Barker of What's On a Man's Mind, which went something along the lines of this:

Me: "After two years of writing my column, I am still mightily confused as to why exactly men cheat when they're in a relationship with a great low-maintenance woman?"

Geoff: "Because men like sex. It's as simple as that."

Ahuh. And if you're unsure of whether or not your latest squeeze is in fact from the high maintenance breed, perhaps you should attempt the "picnic test": organise an impromptu picnic for you and your new gal; ditch any low-carb-friendly foods, conveniently forget the picnic blanket and suggest hopping over to a trendy pub afterwards. Squeals of terror will be your answer ...

Is your partner high or low maintenance? Have you ever dated a high-maintenance woman? Are they appealing or too much work? Do you agree with Mae West when she said, "it is better to be looked over than overlooked"? And ladies, have you ever dated a high-maintenance man?

- Samantha Brett
- More of ASK SAM
- More SMH blogs

• Posted by Samantha Brett at 6:12 PM
• Comments (91)

Why men hold back their tears

Pic: Brad Pitt, a serial crier, getting emotional in the film Babel

Women do it 64 times a year, men do it just 17. No, I'm not talking the number of times they get their nose hairs waxed (and judging from the men I've met recently, that number should be significantly lower), the number of times a year we get jiggy between the sheets (hopefully those numbers are significantly higher), or when women win arguments with men (as they say, women are right all the time, even when they are wrong). Instead, I'm talking about something far more sensitive, something that's bound to prickle the spines of burly blokes everywhere: shedding a tear.

And I don't mean the odd teardrop when an unexpected chilli flake bounces up your nose (yes, it happened to me and, no, it's not too pleasant). Instead, I'm talking about those noisy, snotty, teary, heaving, raucous, fist-pounding, body-shaking, tear-jerking colossal crying episodes ...

Michael Jordan did it when he won the NBA in 1996, Brad Pitt shed tears in films Babel, Legends of the Fall and Seven, and Bill Clinton has been described by journalists as "a virtuoso of the tear ducts" for his multiple teary episodes.

Yet for some blokes, 17 cries per year would seem like a hell of a lot of wasted water.

"Why cry when it solves absolutely nothing?" they rationalise, preferring to take the technical approach to their problems (which usually involves a calculator and a cheque book).

Even if the conundrum is impossible to solve, it's unlikely we'll see any salt water well up in their eyes, with many gents preferring to take their emotions and sweep them under their proverbial carpet. Unfortunately, those hidden feelings don't always stay put.

"A lot of men know more about how a car works than their own emotions," Ron Bracey, clinical psychologist told the BBC. And while crying allows men to release those all important stress hormones, it seems they're unlikely to let go of a few tears for fear of being labelled weak, emotionally vulnerable and - worst of all - feminine.

Introducing the emotional camel syndrome: where men can go without intimacy and sharing emotions for weeks, months, years, but suddenly have an outpour when they least expect it.

Case in point is my seemingly unemotional male colleague P who I observed over the holiday break. Enraptured in a tumultuous relationship with his on-again off-again girlfriend of two years, I met him for brunch not long after New Years Day, only to find his face flushed and eyes streaming with tears. When I asked him if he was okay, the sobbing only exacerbated.

"I hate her so much because of what she does to me," he yelped loudly between snivels. "But I love her so much at the same time. How is this possible? Why does she do this to me? And why am I crying? What is wrong with me?"

I'd never seen strong P so emotionally vulnerable before and realised that perhaps what the psychologists have been saying all along might not be so fuddy-duddy after all: blokes aren't emotionally dead, they are simply emotionally different.

But perhaps women aren't as different to men as we first thought. A quick poll finds most women can't exactly pinpoint the last time they cried.

"Was it while reading the book Eat, Pray, Love by Elizabeth Gilbert perhaps?" said one. "Or maybe when I was watching the final scene of Cruel Intentions on Foxtel the other night?" mused another.

Either way all agreed that something strange happens when they don't cry for a while. When it does come out, it really does come bawling out ...

What's the last thing you were really emotional about? Has a relationship ever made you really emotional? And are you (or have you dated) an emotional camel or a serial crier? And, please help my mate P; what do you do if you love someone so much but hate them equally at the same time?

- Samantha Brett
- More of ASK SAM
- More AGE blogs

• Posted by Samantha Brett at 12:00 AM
• Comments (97)

ASK SAM FRIDAY: The rules of 'taking a break'

"We were on a break!" is just about one of the most famous lines ever to come out of a television sitcom. (In case you've been living under a rock, it's from the series of Friends when Ross sleeps with someone else while on a break with girlfriend Rachel, played by Jennifer Aniston.)

The question that emerges is this: when temptation comes our way, does this mean we should ignore it even though we're semi-single? Does "on a break" simply mean, "we're still dating but not bonking each other" and therefore are not allowed to look, touch or sleep with anyone else until such break is either rectified or cemented for good?

According to an unofficial poll around the office, "taking a break" seems to be thought of not as seeing how many other people you can sleep with before you have to re-commit to your ex, (I can hear a collective sigh in disagreement from the gents), but instead it's a time to reflect and discover ways to improve the relationship the next time around. Nor is it time to get smashed, do crazy things and drunk-dial your ex at 4am. (Oops!)

But this makes me wonder; is a break really a break, or merely a test to see how committed you are to one another? Reader Jason asks the Ask Sam readers about his interesting conundrum ...

"My ex recently dumped me (for the second time) after meeting a guy who she fell for from Italy over the holidays. She was with him but then decided to come back to me. She has done this before.

She tells me she loves me, but this is not love in my eyes. I have no idea what this is."

It seems Jason's not alone in his quagmire. So I've decided to put together a bunch of rules for those confused about exactly what it means when your partner asks for a break ...


Rules for being "on a break"

* Don't call! If your partner has asked for a break, that doesn't mean you need to call them the next day to remind them you exist. Or the next. Or even the next! It means they need seven/thirty/sixty straight days (the time period is usually pre-negotiated before the break) without seeing or talking to you in order to make up their minds about whether they want to continue on with the relationship.

But that said, it doesn't mean you have to start talking to them after the break period is over either. In fact my mate Jenna (who has had more breaks with her boyfriend last year than shoes in her closet), advises that if a man (or woman) tells you they want a break, they're not really worth the 50 cents it costs to text message them "it's over" ...

* Know that people don't change. Despite the break's aim being to give you both time to make changes to the way you approach the relationship, people don't actually change that much. In fact most of the time things quickly revert back into the same routine you had prior to the break. Perhaps you should lower your expectations instead ...

* Forget pining over your ex, wondering who they're hanging out with or who they're bonking and instead treat it as "you" time. Stay busy, be active, be social, hang out with positive people and don't take your angst out by drowning yourself in a case of vodka. You don't want to spend the entire break time with your head in a toilet bowl.

* Don't get back together just because there's no-one else, life's too boring being alone or you don't really like them but you don't want anyone else to have them either. Get back together because you genuinely realise they're the one for you, and hope to god they didn't meet someone else in the interim ...

What does it mean when you're on a break? What can and can't you do?

Have a great weekend and happy dating!

- Samantha Brett
- More of ASK SAM
- More SMH blogs

• Posted by Samantha Brett at 12:00 AM
• Comments (63)

Why do we need love?

"All you need is love, love, love ..."

The Beatles believed it. Mary J. Blige crooned about it. And Alfred Kinsey (the doyen of all things sex, love and lust), surmised that love is the answer to everything; (only sex brings up a lot more interesting questions).

So why are we so desperate to be loved? Is it because we've been fantasizing about our dream white wedding ever since we were eight years old and played kissing catchers with bridal Barbie and Ken? Is it because we don't feel valued until someone else can truly love us - flaws, warts, hairy legs and all? Or is it because we're afraid to be alone? And do we choose to fall in love, or is it something we're simply hardwired to do?

Either way, the dating industry seems to be making a motza out of exploiting our inexplicable hunger to love and be loved, evidenced by the ever-rising battalion of relationship books currently sitting up on my desk, in a pile large enough to shock even Dr. Phil out of his suspenders ...

"Ten commandments of dating!", "The Street Guide to Flirting!", "How to change a man!", "The Hookup Handbook!" "How to find love in just ten days!" Argh! And while the authors of these books occasionally do a semi-respectable job of attempting to tell us how to date (and understand) the objects of our affection, the majority don't seem to deal with the more pressing issue at hand: why we are so desperate to find love. Why do we need it? What's in it for us?

Speaking of Dr. Phil, (and these days I'm not sure who is the bigger publicity hound, him or Britney), his motto for women in his bestselling tome Smart Love: Fix the One You Want - Fix the One You Got, is somewhat disappointing to me, feeding on our insatiable hunger for love, without really explaining why we need it. By his reckoning it's time to "start being a bride instead of a bridesmaid" (sounds more like a line out of a Katherine Heigl flick to me) and hence we should embark on the GPS (Great Partner Search), with all the precision and hunger of a Surviver contestant fighting for immunity.

Thankfully anthropologist and love-expert Helen Fisher of Rutgers University has realised we're seriously lacking in information and has penned the definitive guide on the subject titled Why we need love. Her theory? The need to be loved is a physical drive no different to hunger, and comprises of three different facets: sex (which gets you out of the house and on the hunt); romantic love (which gives you those first-love giddy emotions), and attachment (long-term fulfilment).

"People don't die for sex," she told Good Morning America. "I've at looked at poetry all over the world, even as much as 4,000 years ago. People live for love, they die for love, they sing for love, they dance for love."

And the most unusual part of her research? It's the men that are the big love softies after all! "Men fall in love faster than women do, because men are so visual," she notes. "And three out of four people who kill themselves over love are men, not women."

So back to why we need love.

Fear of loneliness

Is it fear of loneliness? Helen Gurley Brown, the former editor-in-chief of women's bible Cosmopolitan magazine and author of Sex and The Single Girl (1962), says the answer is a resounding yes. (In taking a stand against this common belief, she refused to get married until she aged 37 and the right man had finally come along.)

"I believe that as many women over thirty marry out of being alone someday - not necessarily now but some day, as for love of or compatibility with a particular man," she writes.

My Single Female Friend (who by the way is a blonde bombshell who recently got burnt by a bona fide bad boy), is testament to Gurley Brown's hypothesis as she recently declared that she desperately wants a man because, "I am just so damn lonely".

(I didn't have the heart to tell her that the stench of desperation is a bigger buzz-killer than unshaven legs and a text from an ex in the middle of sex.)

But as one blogger recently wrote in an email to me: "loneliness is unattractive," and the more lonely and desperate singletons come across, the more unattractive they'll seem.

Society tells us we do

Another theory as to why we're all so obsessed with finding love is because society tells us we need to. As Gurley Brown writes; "I think a single woman's biggest problem is coping with the people who are trying to marry her off!" (And I'm sure many women can attest to that.)

We can't love ourselves until someone else does

Finally, while they say that we can't truly love another before we learn to love ourselves, what if that statement were the other way around? What if we truly couldn't love ourselves until someone else came along and stuck a "taken" sign on our forehead? Will we then feel like someone else can love us and therefore we can finally love ourselves? Now there's food for thought ...

Why do you need love and to be loved? Do you think people need love as much as food and sex? Who falls in love faster: men or women?

PS. From next week, this blog will be featuring on Monday, Wednesday and Fridays (but you can comment everyday) and we'll be taking topic suggestions, stories and reader's requests so email me here. I have 1000 unanswered emails so please be patient!

- Samantha Brett
- More of ASK SAM
- More AGE blogs

• Posted by Samantha Brett at 12:00 AM
• Comments (54)

Why men make better friends. (Just don't date 'em!)

Platonic friendships: a disguise for courtship?

Why is it that whenever a man and a woman are friends (and I'm talking in the truest sense, not the "bonk buddy" type) and dare to step out in broad daylight together, suddenly a hapless litany of folks feel it their duty to pass judgement on the poor unsuspecting twosome?

"Oooh, so was it a date?" they enthusiastically quiz which is shortly followed by a torrent of "so why don't you guys make out already?", "you're such a great couple!", "you look so good together!", "it's so obvious you fancy the socks off each other!" and worst of all, "if you're not going to make your move, do you mind if I bonk 'em instead?" Argh! No wonder male-female friendships are more complicated than doing a Sunday Sudoko puzzle with hangover, and a pen.

Of course the perplexity and mystification surrounding male/female friendships is nothing new ...

Back in the 19th century, philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche realised the multitude of quandaries such unions caused, and blamed it on the women, (oh how men love to blame us for every diminutive thing), musing that while the fairer sex can form friendships with men very well, to preserve these friendships, we need "a slight physical antipathy" towards our male counterpart.

Oscar Wilde disagreed, declaring that's it's the fault of both sexes when he stated that "between men and women there is no friendship possible. There is passion, enmity, worship, love, but no friendship."

And more recently, comedian Chris Rock decided to give women a break, blaming it all on the gents when he surmised this; "Men don't have platonic friends. We just have women we haven't had sex with yet." Hmph.

So why do so many modern women chose male mates over their female counterparts?

It seems even the jury is stumped over this one because according to new research, women make better mates thanks to the fact they're "deeper and more moral" than the blokes. This according to a study carried out by sociologists from the University of Manchester which found that men are more picky when it comes to friends, and plus they're more "likely to base these relationships on social drinking". (No surprise there.)

Yet these days, when women are fighting over everything including the last handbag at an Oroton sample sale akin to a blood sport worthy of the Olympics, it's no surprise that being friends with men appears the only fail-safe friendship alternative.

"Men can be trusted, relied on and you know they wont want to borrow your shoes or steal your boyfriend," says 28-year-old model Julie Goose, when I ask her what it's like to hang out with men so often. Julie is one of those ladies that ditched the gal-pal gang as soon as she could fit into a bra, and graduated university summa cum laude with a masters in business and a bevy of blokes listed in her filofax.

The trouble, however, is that thanks to Julie's waist-length blonde locks, lithe latte-coloured limbs (that seem to unfairly reach until the moon) and curves that would make even J-Lo reaching for the thigh-master, men can't seem to help but fall in love with her. And while there's been more broken hearts along the way than high heels in her closet (them, not her), I can't help but notice that there might be some merit to her no-women-friendship policy.

Office affairs

Case in point is a marketing manager friend who has worked in one too many all-girl offices. "The bitching, the back-stabbing, the jeers and the competition is enough to make anyone go mad," she confides. "There'd be emails going around about the other girls behind their backs teasing them about everything from what they were wearing to who they were dating and what they were eating for lunch. It was nasty."

To see if the same sort of tosh occurred in all-male environments, (and I highly suspected not), I decided to question a male journalist friend who has spent the last half decade working at a lads mag in an all-male environment. "It's like being at the pub with mates!" he tells me. "There's lots of joking around, talking about sport, playing office cricket and chatting about awesome movies. But it's mostly discussing women and their anatomy, as well as sex stories. And the more embarrassing the better!

"Seriously, it's definitely less competitive and bitchy than a women's office. There's less backstabbing, infighting, clicks - all that girly rubbish. People get along really well. It's much louder than a women's office too. There's constant banter, music and joking. It's like one big frat party."

Sounds good to me. No wonder women prefer the company of men.

Why it's impossible to date someone who already has an opposite sex best friend

Yet if we do choose to be friends with men, another conundrum pops up: trying to find a date with another man becomes an impossible feat.

Over the holidays, I got to watching some of the MTV hit show The Hills. (It was a rainy day.) In case you haven't seen it, here's the quick run-down: it's a reality show (or so they claim) which focuses on the lives, loves, careers and catfights of a bunch of almost twenty-somethings living in the Hollywood Hills. What's intriguing about the show to me is the intricate relationships between the characters, particularly the one between protagonist Lauren Conrad, and her best friend of two years Brody Jenner. It seems every man Lauren meets doesn't add up to Brody and when she does try to date someone else, she finds herself comparing him to Brody, who no-one seems to match up to.

So in saying that, do platonic friendships inhibit us from meeting someone else? Do they prevent us from dating and falling in love in fear of jeopardising the friendship with our platonic beau? Or is the real reason we're still single because we're in love with our best friend... we just don't want to admit it ...

What do you think? Do you agree with the research that women make better friends than men? Which sex do you enjoy socialising with more? Does a close platonic friendship prevent you from dating other people? And is it really possible for men and women to just "be friends" - no string attached?

- Samantha Brett
- More of ASK SAM
- More SMH blogs

• Posted by Samantha Brett at 12:00 AM
• Comments (80)

Why dating sucks: Break-ups, bills and the Hugh-Jackman syndrome

Dear bloggers, ASK SAM is back for 2008! And boy did we miss you. But I've been privy to some bad news: the post-holiday blues have settled in, many have pulled off their bikinis, lost that coveted summer glow, trudged back into work and worst of all, they've just been dumped. Introducing the PHDS: Post Holiday Dumping Syndrome, coming to a relationship near you ...

The Hugh-Jackman syndrome

Perhaps the abundance of break-ups during the month of January (the first week back is the biggest week all year for divorce lawyers), can be blamed on none other than Aussie's golden man of the moment, Hugh Jackman. Think it's absurd? So did I ...

Yet while watching daytime television during the holidays (oh, the luxury!), a male mate of mine named Ned and I came across a startling segment that caused us to choke on our M&Ms.

A news anchor was interviewing a female dating coach (who shall remain nameless). She was plugging her new book which aims to give women key tips to avoid being alone this upcoming Valentine's Day. (By the way, who the heck says spending Valentine's Day without a man is such a travesty anyway?)

The author's number one suggestion? To weed out every unsuitable man you meet until you find someone who resembles nothing less than Hugh Jackman's character in the film Kate and Leopold. (For those who aren't privy to the film, he plays a duke from the 19th century who romantically woos Meg Ryan by making her breakfast in bed, cooking romantic candlelit dinners and faxing love letters to her office. Sigh.)

Ned, flabbergasted and seemingly seething with anger, looked over at me with a quizzical expression. "How is any decent man meant to compare with that? No wonder we're all in such strife! Women are being served up such unrealistic poppycock by pseudo-experts that it's no surprise dating has been turned into such a blood sport!"

Why dating is so costly when love is supposed to be for free

A blood sport indeed. I witnessed this first hand the other night when I decided to go speed dating alongside a whopping 700 other desperate singletons at the Twenty20 cricket game at Telstra Stadium. (Yes it was scary, and no, I didn't find true love.)

Over the course of the night (after being groped numerous times too old or too young for my tastes and I do keep an open mind), I came to one sad conclusion: dating is not only scary, lonely and fickle, it's a darn expensive sport. (Factor in the cab ride, tickets to the event, drinks, food and the follow up dates and you're in debt before you've even got yourself any night-time nookie.)

Case in point is the bunch of New York "well-heeled ladies" who spent a whopping $US1500 in hope of finding a date with the Oprah-endorsed dating service "It's Just Lunch".

Apparently, after forking out the cash, their lunch dates didn't go down too well and the ladies are now suing the company for false advertising.

Okay, so the men they dated lied about their jobs, their marital status and one was even found to be an alcoholic, but do women really believe that true love (and a Brad Pitt look-alike) can really be bought through a dating service? I think not. If true love truly did have such a simple quick-fix solution, there wouldn't be such a vast readership for this blog.

Yet not only is finding a date expensive, keeping a date can burn a hole in your wallet larger than the nest in Amy Whinehouse's hair. Especially for the poor gents.

The dot.com girls

Ever heard of the dot.com girl phenomenon? Well if not, you'll instantly recognise their type: all investment and no return.

Picture this scenario: she flutters her eyelashes, flashes some leg and you think she's interested in you. So you do what any gentleman would do in such a situation and you buy her dinner, purchase her expensive gifts (even if you can't afford them), bring her flowers and pay for her bus tickets. The trouble is, she gives back nothing in return. Nudda, zip, zilch. No action between the sheets. No horizontal hanky panky. In fact she gives you nothing more but a peck on the cheek and a thank-you text, all the while she's out dating other schlumps who treat her mean to keep her keen and you're falling hard.

Chemistry-and-run

Finally, there's the "chemistry and run" quagmire. It goes something along the lines of this: the date goes by in a wondrous haze of laughter, cocktails and chemistry. The litany of hapless dates you've recently endured are momentarily forgotten as you stare into your date's eyes and wonder where the heck they've been all your life. In fact as far as first dates go, this one is screaming a resounding "yes, yes, yes!" That is until you wake up the following day. You check your phone, your email, your blackberry and even your fax machine. But nothing. By the end of the week, you start to come to the realisation that you may have been duped. Yep, you've fallen victim to the "chemistry and run" phenomenon.

Ladies and gents, don't be duped again. In fact if you're not certain if your date is really all that into you, try renting a Hugh Jackman movie instead. At least you'll get something in return ...

Best of luck in the dating sport for 2008!

Why does dating suck? Share your best and worst dating experiences, and how to avoid the pitfalls in 2008! Also, have you been a victim of a holiday dumping? Share your tales...

PS. Check out Sam on the Today Show, Channel Nine, Tuesday morning, talking about internet dating!

PPS. From next week, this blog will be featuring on Monday, Wednesday and Fridays (but you can comment everyday) and we'll be taking topic suggestions, stories and reader's requests so email me here.

I have 1000 unanswered emails so please be patient. Also, Often readers request past topics be re-visited so we'll do our best to deal with them in new ways. So friends, the same rules as always apply: no swear words, slagging off other bloggers or defamation. Otherwise here's to a fabulous 2008 together!

- Samantha Brett
- More of ASK SAM
- More AGE blogs

• Posted by Samantha Brett at 12:00 AM
• Comments (65)