Empowerment In the Meantime

First I was afraid, I was petrified. Kept thinking I could never live without you by my side. But I spent so many nights, thinking how you did me wrong. I grew strong. I learned how to carry on. - Gloria Gaynor, I Will Survive

I may have sounded like a romantic cynic last week when I did my Valentine's Day piece, or more apt my anti-Valentine's Day piece. It couldn't be further from the truth: I not only believe that romance is still alive and well, but I also believe in true love. I found my true love when I least expected it. The difference between me and most romantic cynics is that I empowered myself to ask, believe and receive. And yes, if that sounds like The Secret mantra, then you would be correct in that assumption.

What I'm writing about today is that I have become concerned about the cynicism and sense of hopelessness from some of my sisters in the love department. And I'd like to empower them in this moment and say that love is out there for all of you, if you want it.

I was once not fully open. I had gotten out of a miserable seven year relationship where we stayed on autopilot for about half those years. I remember someone once saying that it's funny how long we put up with "just okay" because we are comfortable. But what was funny with me was that I knew I didn't love him; I was just okay with it because of what I knew about relationships. They were supposed to be functional; not fun or making yourself better. That's what I've learned about relationships: they are supposed to enhance YOU and not make you a bitter and angry person. That was what I was.

What was more was that after that relationship ended, I felt like I was open to other relationships that could better me, but I still fell into old habits. Former Oprah Winfrey consultant Iyanla Vanzant said that when she left Harpo Productions, and started her own talk show with another company, she said she had a history of falling into relationships with people who treated her badly. When she said that, I felt that connection very deeply. I have been a devout believer in manifesting my feelings, energy and my thoughts into reality. And yet, I fell into similar emotionally unavailable traps with intimate relationships, even friendships.

I dated a few people after that significant relationship ended and prior to me meeting my husband. There were two "biggies" that I refer to in helping my girlfriends out in their relationships that I use as parables and anecdotes to try to help them in knowing that true love is out there for them.

One was a guy who I had an on-and-off, and off-and-on, and on-and-off, then off for a little while, then on-and-off again till I basically met my husband. In his views, we were friends. But here's the thing: we weren't friends. Hell, I'm not even sure we liked each other as people. And yet, I stuck around because I was "in the meantime," as Iyanla would say. "In the meantime" is seen as the period between relationships to help women and men avoid repeating unproductive behaviors of the past.

Another significant person I dated I justified that he fit the "profile." He was smart, handsome, had a good job. He treated me well by taking me out and giving into my ideas for fun. Of course, the story goes when I started to "pressure" him into a more "real" relationship, he shut down. See, when it was all fun and games, the relationship was worth being in. He used the excuse that he was going through a divorce, and yet I lied to myself and went against every single girl's bible He's Just Not That Into You excuses: he'll change and see I'm the one for him. Yet, even when I saw his true colors -- shallow, insecure and disrespectful -- I still made excuses? And you know why? Because I wasn't sure when love was going to knock on my door. That was how desperate I was for love.

Even when he disappeared, returned, and tried to get back in my good graces, I was angry. PISSED OFF. And I still gave him the benefit of the doubt. I remember talking to my friend about it over drinks. Then I smiled to myself, and she asked, "What is it?" I said, "Wow, I realized just how desperate I just sounded." After that, I stopped. I even had lost a few friends in the meantime, but they were mostly toxic relationships or relationships that neither of us really had to offer one another. So my question is: why do we stay in these relationships for too long? Iyanla says it keeps us occupied. It gives us drama. But drama begats drama. And sometimes, the drama simply isn't worth it.

And it's when you least expect it, when you get rid of toxic relationships all around you, be it friendship or love, you will open yourself to being in the relationships you deserve to be in.

So when I see my girlfriends repeating these bad behaviors for themselves, and excusing bad behaviors of others for their own purposes, it makes me so sad. Because I know these fabulous women deserve better for themselves and should be using these lessons as empowerment in life. Once you empower yourself in romance, you will open yourself up to the life you deserve and crave.

So what will it be? Drama? Or happiness? Empower yourself today!

The Hallmark Holiday

I'm going to just come right out and say it: I am NOT a Valentine's Day chick. Maybe when I was a kid I liked it, when you could give those silly little drug store cards to your classmates. And yeah, I admit, the chocolate part is pretty nice.

But I can eat chocolate any damn day of the year I want (well, except for recently but that's besides the point). And I don't have to pay such a high premium simply because they are in a silk box or heart-shaped container.

Yet, most women I know make such a big deal out the day. Nothing against that, but the whole day reeks of insincerity to me. I guess I'm just a cynic. In the popular beach read book, The Nanny Diaries, a few years back described a scene where the aristocratic mother of the child who was the focus of the book found out her husband was cheating on her on Valentine's Day...all after going to great lengths to look breathtakingly stunning and making the nanny call over the island of Manhattan to find a romantic restaurant reservation one week before (shockingly enough, most places were booked for that day, go figure).

Lucky for me, I married a guy who isn't into it either. Last year, we went away for the weekend just coincidentally because it was President's weekend (read: three day weekend). What was funny was the lady at the place we stayed at asked if we wanted to participate in their lovey-dovey prix fixe dinner special for Valentine's Day...and we were both like, Uh...no? We actually had reservations someplace else...that ALSO had a special menu (we were upset since we had no choice in the matter and wanted to try what their website had).

And yet, romance is something that doesn't lack in our relationship. I like that we can fold laundry together and just sit in silence. I like that even though he can barely boil water, he'll still try to help me in the kitchen. Those things to be are incredibly romantic and happen every damn day. In fact, I find it more sincere when the hubs comes home with a bouquet of sunflowers in June, just for the hell of it (plus, I'm not really a roses kind of gal anyway). By the way, one of the best V-Day's I ever had was doing my laundry with my then-significant other. We didn't exactly celebrate it either, but he brought us "magic lemonades" (which was basically spiked Snapple lemonade) and we looked none the lushy to those around us.

So my point is, I was reading some articles on how group buying sites like Groupon and Living Social have figured into the Valentine's Day realm by offering deeply discounted chocolates (damn them when I was on a chocolate fast), romantic dinners for two specifically for the day (I actually just participated in a Yelp promotion for a dinner for two that I will be redeeming for our anniversary...and the fine print said - not redeemable on February 14), and even half-price flowers. And the gist of the article was that the buyer (read: male) had another thing to worry about by going Groupon. After all, would he be considered "cheap" or "spending wisely" by his significant other? Chances are, if they've been together for a while, they'll appreciate each others spending habits and the thought behind the gift anyway.

But the theme of the piece was that when you've been together for a long time, the gift becomes less important. It's the whole "wooing" part of the relationship that you really need to make a difference in what you purchase. Take for instance, in Cincinnati, a big tradition for some folks is going to White Castle, where they actually have to take reservations and eat their sliders by candlelight. I'll tell you what: I think that was possibly the most romantic thing I've ever read in my life. I'd rather do something like that on my anniversary than make my husband dress up (which is a feat in and of itself). Anyway, my point is, why the pressure? It's a made-up holiday to get people to give cards, for crying out loud!

But that begs a good point and why I usually lay up front my whole aversion to the day when I was dating. See, my husband is very anti-tradition, much like me, which is why we're a good match. When I was out and about on the dating scene though in my 20s, I had to put it out there that I didn't like it. Usually, they didn't listen. But they were out the door when they didn't. I hope that doesn't make me sound bitchy. Trust me, there was more underneath the surface, but not listening to my rules on V-Day, you'd think they'd oblige. Anyway, I have some stories that should make you laugh as to why I don't like the day all that much...

1) Back to that whole "wooing" period, I was a freshman in college (read: poor) and I met a guy who worked by the supermarket where I had a part-time job. We started hanging out in January but knew each other before then, plus I liked him. I mean, whatever. He was a boy, and we had fun together which basically consisted of us going to movies together and then to Dunkin Donuts afterwards. Anyway, I didn't want to go all out for Valentine's Day. I knew even then it was a Catch-22: if you went crazy this early in the relationship, you would be seen as "crazy needy chick;" if you didn't acknowledge it all, you are a "crazy selfish bitch." Needless to say, we had plans on the day before...I believe the holiday was on a Friday, so it was plans for a Thursday.

I bought a simple card, that was basically a cutesy funny card that I thought was perfect. Not over the top, not stupid. I put a lot of thought into it SO I wasn't construed as crazy needy chick. But I even was going to give it conditionally: he would have to give me something first, so that I didn't a) look like an idiot giving him something, even just a card and b) I didn't look like crazy needy chick. The other part was if he didn't give me anything, depending on how the night went, I would give it to him as he dropped me off at my dorm. Again, if he just didn't think to do anything, that's fine, but I didn't want to make him feel like a jerk for not getting me at least a card (because I didn't even really care that much about that).

Well, guess what? Not a phone call, not a word from him about our "date." I remember ripping up the card (not that I was that upset, but because I basically didn't want evidence that I even got him anything), and getting drunk with my friend in her room (also dateless). So then I get a call about two weeks later, about how he "got sick" and was out of commission. For what? Two weeks? Unless you were hit by a truck or something, I don't want to hear it.

It may have a 19-year old's overreaction but make no mistake: it left an imprint on my psyche about how much men don't want to give the wrong impression on Valentine's Day, especially if they are not 100% into you or the relationship is still relatively new.

But I wasn't done yet...

2) I was dating a guy for about eight months and make no mistake: we were into each other (him more so than me, but I was a bored 23-year old...don't judge). He asked me if I wanted to do anything for Valentine's Day. He hadn't heard my dislike of the day yet (surprisingly but that's another story). I told him, oh don't make a big deal out of it, flowers really aren't my thing but chocolate is and I can eat it whenever. Anyway, as fate would have it, I had to work late that night so we didn't do anything. So I stopped by his place on my home and guess what? He got me something all right: Balloons.

I. HATE. Balloons. If there's anything I dislike more than Valentine's Day, it's balloons. Getting balloons on Valentine's Day takes the prize. And it's not even that I thought they are thoughtless: I am just afraid of them. When I told my husband this story, he asked, "Did he actually want you to break up with him?" Because even hubs knows, if I am on a train with someone carrying balloons, I have to get off the car. Trust me, I'm bad.

We broke up a month later. I won't disclose if balloons was a reason...but there was a laundry list and that might have broken the list. Just sayin'.

3) A few years, I was in an on-and-off relationship with a guy. During those "off" periods, I'd date, and I managed to make a few good friends with those dates. One guy I dated happened to live on the West Coast, we enjoyed each other's company but knew it couldn't be anything more. That's cool: I was aware of it at least.

Another guy I "saw" during the off-periods was a friend-of-a-friend, actually she used to date HIM and encouraged me to hang out with him because he always thought I was so "cool." Fine. That was another relationship that was better off as friends and we both knew it.

So February 14th rolls around, and who do I hear from? The two guys who were "friends" and not that on-off guy. Did I mention we were back "on" at that point?

Now I know it might seem hypocritical for me to call that "on-off" guy on that behavior, when I didn't even send him a message or anything. Do I need to pull out the "needy crazy chick" card again? Maybe not. But honestly, I wouldn't have even given his non-message a second thought if the two more thoughtful friends of mine who happened to be guys I had dated at one point hadn't reached out either. Maybe they were sending these messages to other chicks, but they sent one to me, and that was all that mattered. See? Valentine's Day is even giving me a reason for WHY people should send me messages...that's bad.

4) This last one isn't even mine, but it's a good one: my friend had met a guy one night when she and I went out drinking. I thought he was nice, and even called her when she had vomited on the side of his car that first night (I can't even use the excuse that we were young...we were in our early 20s, but stuff happens). Anyway, they were seeing each other regularly, and she makes a big deal out of V-Day, buying just little gifts and putting a lot of thought. They had even talked on the phone the day before, solidifying plans for the night, where she had made reservations for a nice-ish restaurant...I mean, we're not talking TGI Friday's...it's a place that needs reservations (and not White Castle...she's a vegetarian).

Short story long, she calls me and says, "I've been trying to call him for the past hour, and no answer. I have a feeling he's not coming."

Me, in the role of "supportive friend," tries to cheer her up. "Don't be silly! He likes you...he's probably on his way right now."

She says, "No, he was supposed to be here already, like a 1/2 hour ago...I might even need to postpone our reservation."

I said, "Well do that -- he might be stuck in traffic..." Yeah right! It was a Sunday night, and preceding a Monday holiday (it was also President's weekend that weekend...I should also mention this was before cell phones were really mainstream so he couldn't even call her to let her know if there was traffic, so it very well could have been a reason).

She said, "Well if he's not here in an hour, I'm going to cancel them and just go into the city."

I said, "What's going on in the city tonight?"

She tells me that not only is her friend's band playing (I'd seen them a couple of times and liked them), but that they were opening for one of HER favorite bands at her favorite club. I was actually surprised she didn't try to get this guy to go with her to that.

I had a great idea. "I don't have a date tonight. Why don't I drive up to your place, which will be in less than an hour. If he's not there 15 minutes after I get there, we go into the city together. If he gets there, and you guys have left, I'll just chalk it up to that I had nothing else going on tonight."

I hung up, and did the drive...I'm sure you can guess. We ended up being each others "dates" and had an awesome night. So I guess there's a silver lining. Charlotte York said it best on Sex and The City when she said that the girls can be each others "soul mates" and men can be just these little play things. I totally got that line.

I know I sound cynical. I know there are going to be some people who vehemently disagree with me and think Valentine's Day is the best thing since heart-shaped chocolate. Well, I will always think heart-shaped chocolate rules the day...but anything chocolate rules to me.

I just think there's an incredible amount of pressure for showing your love for your significant other, or making someone "your Valentine." And for what? So people can complain and be like, "Oh my boyfriend is such an idiot and can't even give me a good Valentine's gift." Or making you feel bad because YOU don't have a significant other, while the person sitting next to your desk is chattering away because she thinks that with the 5 dozen bouquets her boyfriend has sent, she's pretty sure he's going to propose? Oh, gag me with a purple Twinkie. 'Cause let me tell you something: those flowers, those chocolates, those cards? Most of your boyfriends or husbands or significant others are buying them for you at the supermarket 10 minutes before they come home, and barely even read the card...they just want to make sure it doesn't say "Happy Valentine's Day to a Special Grandma" before giving it to you.

Think of that next time you are seeing a guy you like, going insane over setting the tone for the "perfect" card when you don't want to sound like crazy needy chick but don't want to be an insensitive bitch for not getting anything at all. Screw that! Appreciate the little things, ladies, and stop putting pressure on ourselves to outdo the whole Valentine's Day scam.

Oh and waiter...my husband and I would like a 20-pack of sliders, half French fries, half onion rings, two cherry cokes. Kthxbye. Love, the Coop

Love Connection Pioneers

I remember watching that awfully cheddarific show in the '80s when I was a kid, Love Connection, with your host, Chuck Woolery!

Yes, that was the tag line. I was just watching some old YouTube clips with that show, and I think that today we enjoy that voyeurism just as much. Look at shows like The Bachelor and even those television shows that add absolutely nothing to culture, like Flavor of Love or Rock of Love on VH-1. They showcase these love connections, and make light of the awkwardness that is dating.

When I was a swinging single, I wasn't a good dater per se. I went on dates, but I was a serial relationship-ist. I had no problem meeting people in the outside world, but I also often thought there was a stigma attached to meeting people online, especially love connections. There seemed to be this creepy pervasive element. When people having home computers and the Internet became more mainstream, it became evident that this was merely an evolutionary tactic for people to meet eventually face-to-face and to bring populations closer together.

Prior to meeting my husband, I dabbled in sites like E-Harmony and Match. I really felt like I was better meeting people on my own, outside of the computer screen. To each their own though. I met lots of folks on these sites, people I am friends with to this day, and I feel like these sites really harp on the whole "mind" connection as opposed to being attracted to someone. Not to say that it didn't work a bit. But I will say that some lasting friendships have occurred since.

Today, an article caught my attention on CNBC, "Social Media Sites May Be Ready For Romance." It basically stated that people who get involved in sites like Facebook and Twitter often do so to make friendship connections. To me, though, it seems like a natural evolutionary process to connect friendship with romance on these sites. After all, I did it.

I started blogging years ago on baseball, and I met lots of friends through it. I expected that though. My husband and I met because we were both passionate fans of the same team, and like each other's writing. When we became friends on Facebook, it was a natural progression that we'd be friends in real life and not just one of those "Facebook only" relationships.

But if someone had told me I'd get a husband out of it, I'd have told them they dang lost their minds!

This is just a natural progression of social media. Of course, it would be only natural that it would pervade our romantic lives as well. It also takes away the whole attachment of these pay sites that may or may not give you a suitable love connection. In fact, a lawsuit was brought against Match a few years ago about the fact that some of the recommendations for dating were inactive profiles. I knew this on both ends: I was getting emails from them, saying that someone wanted to meet me, when I knew my profile wasn't active. Well, no kidding! They wanted me to sign up again and get my fees. But it had not occurred to me that there was someone else, a living and breathing person who may have shown interest that wasn't getting a response. I know I had that problem too when I saw someone who I actually knew in real life (sorta) who was engaged! His profile was still seen by other singles, but I had to inform him that his profile was still up! Needless to say he was mortified (and no, he did not meet his wife on there, natch).

When people ask me about how my husband and I met, I am a little proud of our story. We became friends through shared interests, then really became "interested" in one other...now I not only met my best friend, but I got a husband out of it too. I'd like to think we are pioneers in the next generation of love connections! Save the mullets, aqua net and bad '80s clothing.

The Google Effect

It's no big mystery that we live in a society predicated on instant gratification.  Some call it the "Google Effect" -- you get an idea, you need an answer and bam! you get one.  Couldn't be any easier, right?  So easy, in fact, that you could just hear contestants' phone-a-friends on the game show "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" punching away at the keys, in the hopes of finding the answer in less than the allotted 30 seconds.  Now, imagine what would happen if Google failed them?

Everything has a sense of urgency.  When we need something right now, we really needed it yesterday.  It's not only when money is involved that we become irritated and aggravated at these failed attempts to get what we want and need.  It's within our relationships and careers that we may also lose control.  Add all this to an already unhappy person, and don't be surprised if it feels like World War III is about to commence.

Today's world has advanced so much that we rely on it, rather than ourselves, to be happy.  The problem is that these advances are not in direct relation to our expectations.  Our expectations far exceed these advances, and we expect -- and even demand -- more than we are capable of obtaining.  Our expectations can then seem totally unrealistic, in terms of turnaround time and what it is we even want!

This life has become all about what makes us happy in the now.  We don't consider the future or how our decisions now will affect us longterm.  We are selfish, impatient and flat-out rude when we don't get what we want.  We see someone else with something and we have to have it.  And there is no such thing as will-power and not giving into temptation anymore.

So what does this have to do with technology, you ask?  Just look around. Everywhere I turn, I see people with smart phones permanantly fixated to their hands.  We, as a collective society, just can't not be connected.  Funny thing is, no one is using their phone to make actual calls.  E-mails and text messages and Facebook comments -- that is how we are staying connected to our friends and family these days.  And boy, can we multi-task!  What happened to the personal touch?  What happened to real-live, human interaction?

I often wonder, were we not so technologically advanced, would we expect so much out of other aspects of our lives, not related to business, education, and medicine?  You know, the things that should really matter, like family, friends and religion?  Would life be good enough for us without technology?

Sorry, but Google does not have the answer to that one.  You'll have to come up with that one on your own.

Life: Unplugged

I recently joined a micro-blogging/shared interest network called Tumblr. One of the items to interact with the users on this platform is to open yourself up for questions; i.e., what is your favorite food, etc? The question I was asked was "What is your favorite inanimate object?"

To which I replied, "Does my iPhone count?"

I need my iPhone at the ready at all times. For everything! I have my email, my address book, my GPS for when I drive, different apps including Fandango and oh yeah, my phone...Now apparently, when I refill my Starbucks card, I can use the damn phone to not only refill the card, but use as a debit card to purchase my lattes as well. What a world!

The convenience of it is great as I can transfer money from my checking account to my credit card app in one fell swoop, just so I don't get hit with a late fee. Too lazy to hit the ATM the night before? No problem! I can simply link my Starbucks account to refill, and swing my phone over the register to pay for breakfast. Does this take away from the personal experience though of customer service and most importantly, human-to-human interaction?

Years ago, a common complaint would be if you called a customer service hotline (operative word being "service"), it would take forever to reach a human. It was fodder for stand-up comedians the world over. And nowadays, we seem to take the human interaction, or lack thereof, to another level, by adding more apps to our phones to make a simple transaction even simpler by making it not only "express" but "super-duper express."

I can't say that I have a problem with it per se, but I do have a problem with the lack of person-to-person interaction. I guess I was one of those old school "people persons" who would take pride in helping a person find what they needed or talk to them. Back in the day, you could go into your local hardware store, talk to the owner, get what you needed "on credit" and pay when you felt like it. Fuggedaboutit nowadays. You go to Home Depot, you pick up your supplies, go to the "self-service checkout counter," use your Home Depot credit card and then leave with nary a word spoken to personnel (unless, of course, you need to get items that require assistance from their experts).

Don't get me wrong. I am not wistful for days of yore, in fact, I embrace these new technologies. I think when the year 2000 rolled around, we expected to live like the Jetsons, with flying cars and ready-to-eat meals in a pill form so that our time wouldn't be wasted with cooking. Well, we haven't gotten that far...but we have gotten to a point where the most mundane of tasks such as paying bills have been automated to a point that we don't even need to think about it.

But that's not to say that being totally plugged or addicted to our apps or smartphones or even our social networks aren't being a cautionary tale. Sherry Turkle, a professor of social studies at MIT, has written a book called Alone Together that had a review at Fast Company recently. The title in and of itself fascinated me as well as provides a paradoxical situation. The world is brought closer together, but in some areas we still are so far apart.

I have often said that social media has opened doors for many different things for me, personally. I feel like my relationships have gotten better as a result. However, it's not that I don't take those things in stride. I have "connections" and I have "friends." There is a big difference. Turkle takes this to the next level and warns that she doesn't disparage social networking, but she puts "these technologies in their place." She goes on to warn, however, about being too explicitly connected to these social networks:

"...even though you're alone, you get into this situation where you're continually looking for your next message, and to have a sense of approval and validation. You're alone but looking for approval as though you were together--the little red light going off on the BlackBerry to see if you have somebody's validation. I make a statement in the book, that if you don't learn how to be alone, you'll always be lonely, that loneliness is failed solitude. We're raising a generation that has grown up with constant connection, and only knows how to be lonely when not connected. This capacity for generative solitude is very important for the creative process, but if you grow up thinking it's your right and due to be tweeted and retweeted, to have thumbs up on Facebook...we're losing a capacity for autonomy both intellectual and emotional."

It's more than the next generation of millennials or the generation after that is to be warned of this notion but even my generation and the generation prior, because we are getting sucked into this almost antithetical lifestyle of being truly connected, but having a disconnect at the same time of needing that validation. If it doesn't happen in our face, then perhaps we shake it off. We may take it personally if someone doesn't take our friend request or "recommendation." This stuff never bothered in face-to-face contact, as I could handle rejection. Being so connected, it's hard not to take stuff personally. It's just another level in the interaction of human quality.

It seems like Turkle and CoopDeeVille are not the only people pondering these questions. Another book that was published by a woman who disconnected her family from their devices, including smart phones, computers, television, video games, the whole nine called The Winter of our Disconnect serves as a primitive form of the blog in chronicling this. It wasn't just her children, she conducted this "Experiment" as she called it herself (even admitting to sleeping with her iPhone, which I have not done yet, but I have brought it into the bathroom with me on occasion).

I have to say that it would be hard for me to totally disconnect. It's one thing that I have to use a computer to work. I guess that could be a dispensation since everyone is "wired" in the office setting. On the other hand, Susan Maushart (the author) said one of her children for homework and research purposes went to (*shock!* *gasp!*) the LIBRARY. Wait a minute...you mean, people still use those? Guess they do serve a purpose somehow. But the topic fascinated me. Could I do that?

Maushart went on to say that "The Experiment" was "relinquishing the ostrichlike delusion that burying my head in information and entertainment from home was just as good as actually being there." I thought that was interesting. It called into question strengthening the relationships in reality and not be as plugged as we are. What a concept.

So as I reach for my phone to check into Foursquare and to pay for my Starbucks skinny vanilla latte while listening to U2 on my iPod, perhaps I should at least say hello to the cashier who is nice enough to ring me up. After all, I wouldn't want to seem disengaged or anything.

Facebook Etiquette, According To Dee

I know I'm going to end up ruffling some feathers with this one, but there are just some things people need to learn if they plan on keeping their heads above water in the Facebook community.

And so, I give you the official Facebook Etiquette, Dee-style.

Rule #1 - You don't have to "like" every one of my statuses, comment on every one of my statuses, or "like" every comment on my statuses.  I know I've griped about lack of interaction on Facebook, but too much of one thing is not good either.  Everything in moderation.  While I want to interact with you, that doesn't mean I want to see you all up in my business every second of the day.  That's just weird.

Rule #2 - Rule #1 goes for my pictures as well, and probably even more so.

Rule #3 - Don't be creeping on my friends list to see who YOU can become friends with. If you don't know them, don't request them!  Oh, and tell YOUR friends the same thing when it comes to requesting me.

Rule #4 - Don't use the "poke" feature.  Seriously, it's pointless (no pun intended).  There are plenty of other ways to tell someone you want to "get in their pants" without letting all of Facebook know. 

Rule #5 - Wish your friends a "Happy Birthday" on their special day.  It's the LEAST you can do.  If you can't even do that, then why be friends?  

Rule #6 - Don't start cursing and mouthing off on a thread where your friend's mother or father (or maybe even grandmother) is involved, unless you know them well enough to know it's acceptable.  I'm not saying you shouldn't be yourself, but have a little respect when you need to.

Rule #7 - For couples only:  Don't use a friend's wall to have it out with each other. Facebook is NOT the place, no less someone else's page!  It causes awkwardness for the friend and kinda puts a damper on the feed.

Now that you know all of this, I ask, how is YOUR social networking etiquette???

Overused Word: Narcissist?

You've probably heard the myth of Narcissus played over and over. It's one of the most recognizable stories in Greek mythology, the one where Narcissus fell in love with the reflection in water. The irony was that he didn't realize it was an image, was afraid to leave the beauty of the image, and subsequently wasted away, dying of thirst as a result.

The lesson taught is that to be so self-consumed can result in "death," not so much the physical finality of death but that it can drive others away and be tough to live up to not only your own expectations, but to others around you.

Usually, when someone is called a "narcissist," it's...well...not considered "complimentary," in my opinion anyway. And yet, the very notion of what we do as individuals straddles a fine line between narcissism and just plain self-promotion. How does one balance that? Or is there one?

With the advent of social media tools, there is certainly a fine line of self-promotion versus interaction. To me, though, it's not so much an area of black and white, but more of that proverbial grey-shaded area where two circles interject. Bruce Reyes-Chen from the San Francisco Chronicle suggests that while social media puts the whole narcissism thing out there, he could argue that all communication (even old-fashioned phone calls, email marketing, face-to-face meetings even) can theoretically promote some agenda, right? I know when I meet people for marketing one-on-ones, there's always an underlying agenda there. We may generally enjoy each others company, have great conversation but at the end of the day, there's a deal that's brokered. Isn't that, by nature, a narcissistic promotion of one's agenda? I guess if one considers "putting food on the table" narcissistic, then perhaps. Reyes-Chow even suggests that the community in electronic forms is no different than say, family gatherings, religious houses and even knitting groups. However, he also writes, there is a fine line about the ugliness of a look-at-me-me-me community.

Narcissism is a topic du jour. The New York Times suggested to do away with several layers of the Narcissistic Personality Disorder as a "mental disorder." The article suggests that with the advent of so many people coming into the same forums as truly "narcissistic" personalities are, that their biggest fear might be realized: they will be ignored.

In response to this article, Jason Brand from the Huffington Post suggests that to do away with the term "Narcisstic Personality Disorder" in this day and age is bad timing especially in the Digital Age. I suppose that the idea behind that thinking is that for years and years, we've been promoting "self interest" and self "health and wellness" by thinking highly of ourselves, in a better effort to treat others around us. Brand suggests there is a healthy amount of narcissism out there, but it's tough to figure out. To me, the idea of it is contradictory. We've been promoting a high-level of self-esteem and to have a high opinion of ourselves. The idea was to carry that feeling over to others, to gain a better understanding of fellow man.

However, the biggest argument to me, in removing this title, is that deeply rooted Narcissistic Personality Disorder lacks empathy, is cruel and snarky but to be simply "self-absorbed" -- a very notion promoted by Millennial parents world over -- does not qualify one to be "Narcisstic." I can see the dilemma by wanting to put a label on it...but are Narcissists truly a danger to their community? They may be annoying, but then again, I'm sure we've all been guilty of it at times ourselves.

Meghan Daum at the Los Angeles Times wanted to take it a step further, and even said that the term "narcissist" itself is overused, and therefore rendered meaningless.

I'm going to have to go ahead and sort-of disagree there. See, I say "so-and-so is a narcissist" or "that's some narcissistic behavior" (which believe me, I do tend to interject that in a conversation every now and then), chances are...you're gonna know what I'm talking about. And I can emphasize it's not a good thing.

If someone is going to try to put food on the table, make their mark in some kind of community...what would rather have: a person who is negative about themselves who brings everyone down? Or someone who might have a high opinion of themselves and tries to engage people?

Maybe they can be sad, or perhaps a little out of touch. But trust me, Daum is off the mark here: narcissism, the term, isn't all that lost in today's Digital generation. You're gonna know what someone means when they say it. End of story!

The "Me" Relationship

"If you can't love yourself...how in the hell can you love somebody else?" - RuPaul Charles

Relationship [rɪˈleɪʃənʃɪp] n:

1. The condition or fact of being related; connection or association.

2. Connection by blood or marriage; kinship.

3. A particular type of connection existing between people related to or having dealings with each other: has a close relationship with his siblings.

4. A romantic or sexual involvement.
~ Merriam-Webster Dictionary

When one is in a relationship with a significant other, shouldn't it be considered antithetical to the very notion of a relationship to have it self-centered?

That's what Tara Parker-Pope's argued in her Sustainable Love column in the New York Times titled "The Happy Marriage is the 'Me' Marriage." And the idea of having a more self-centered you in a relationship seemingly made it more enlightening and satisfying for all parties involved, and not, as Parker-Pope suggests, by putting the relationship first.

I suppose if you think about it, it kind of makes sense. After all, my generation hears so many sob stories about previous generations' marriages staying together for various outside reasons, third parties including children, religious beliefs, money, whatever applies to your personal relationship. What kind of message does that send to the third parties though, the children who see you stay married even if you yourself are not fulfilled; people in your religious circles who pray for you, but do not live with you; trappings are more important than being happy. Et cetera, et cetera. At least now it seems like the current generation has the wherewithal to be in relationships that are fulfilling together and to the self. That above all is important.

For years, people have told me that marriage is about "compromise," and I don't deny that much is true. What I can say is there is a lot to be said about a couple that is comfortable within itself that the individual that makes up the sum-of-the-parts still has outside interests, or better yet shares these interests with their significant other.

For years, I'd been trying to find that delicate balance. I was in a long-term relationship that it seemed like I had to do a lot of changing of my ways, while I allowed him a lot of freedom to do what he wanted. Was it any surprise that we didn't last? It would be one thing if we liked going to the same places, or doing the same things, but the reality was that we stayed together for a lot of wrong reasons...those "third parties" if you will.

One thing I can say about being married is that it's nothing like I had expected. There is compromise for sure, but compromise in a good way. It's understanding but it's also one that when I wake up in the morning, I am often anticipating what the universe has in store for us. But us as an entity that can act separately. I can go to dinner with friends, he can go bike riding. At the end of the day, when we go to bed, we are fulfilled with ourselves and our outside interests, and we appreciate that individuality enough to be able to stand in solidarity.

I took a Sustainable Marriage Quiz in the NYT as well, based on this article, and I am happy to say I scored on the highly expansive side. A highly expansive relationship can evolve and still stand to grow and doesn't stay stagnant. This is important for all vital interests in a relationship to take care of your brain and be able to contribute to the relationship. We are figuring out that there is a big "What's-in-it-for-me" situation going on with marriage these days. Maybe that's what we needed.

Get Your Groupon!

I first heard about group-buying platform Groupon early in 2010, when someone asked me to do some research on it at the company I worked for at the time. That day specifically had a deal for a spa massage for like 75% off. I wondered what the catch was at first, but then I figured, why not? If I lose out on $30, it's only $30 (of course, tell me that when I lost my job a few weeks later...then again, I needed that damn massage).

Groupon is the newest technology darling in the smartphone app/social networking, although it's been around for a few years. It's exactly as it sounds: it provides coupons for groups, essentially, with the power of group purchasing. Let's say that a restaurant is offering $30 worth of food for $15. You and a bunch of people "buy into" the deal, and then show your Groupon at said restaurant (by printing out the voucher or simply showing your phone to the server) et voila! Competing websites include Living Social, Bloomspot, and KGB Deals.

Warning: Groupon can be habit forming. In my quest to be active but not be tied down to any one gym, I have been purchasing Groupons, Living Socials and KGB Deals for abbreviated gym memberships, training and boot camp (yikes!). I am having trouble keeping track of how many I have.

Groupon recently turned down a very lucrative offer from powerhouse Google, for $6 billion! One must wonder what their long-term plans include, potentially going public, but for the time being felt they were being undervalued...UNDERVALUED!...by Google's offer. Within a month's time, however, they received an injection of financing valuing them at $1 billion from Kleiner Perkins. Other financiers Greylock Partners (which include the dudes who run career website LinkedIn) wrote a glowing review as to why they invested in Groupon.

At the root of it all, not only in the power of the group buying mechanism, is the power of the group data. I don't think it takes a genius to realize that mostly women are going to purchase bikini wax groupons, and maybe men will buy rock climbing groupons (though to be honest, I know some women who will do that).

It ties into the whole privacy issue once again. Although Groupon, Living Social and their investors aren't doing anything that hasn't been done in a more clandestine manner. Back in the day, supermarkets started dispensing "club cards" to give you savings on their sale items, but used that data to track what was being sold in bulk, and to negotiate with distributors to sell at a lower price. This data is incredibly powerful and valuable (take it from me -- I worked with research departments for several years).

I find it funny that Groupon and Living Social are targeting the New Years Resolutioners with nutrition, wellness and fitness deals. I mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that people are going to commit to going to the gym. But to me, it's a win-win. While places like New York Sports Club are going to lower their initiation fee to $1.11 to lock you in for a year, Groupon and Living Social are giving as close to a non-commitment guarantee to go the gym...

Of course, that's not to discount what the vendors are getting out of it. They are getting foot traffic, referrals and potential new business. I am almost dreading the subsequent sales pitch I am going to get at these places once my Groupon is up. I have a hard time saying no, I mean how can one say no to fitness? Then again, I figure I am covered until July or August of this year with fitness deals, and by then, there may be more.

Groupon is a company to certainly keep your eye on, but hopefully they don't get too big for their britches...and we can still get cheap spa treatments, gym memberships and happy hours for our enjoyment.

My Biggest [Facebook] Pet Peeve

I can NOT pass up this opportunity.  Who knows when it will come along again.  A chance to call out people for their misuse of Facebook.

Now it all makes sense why some Facebook relationships are so one-sided.

My entire News Feed is full of comments posted "via iPhone", "via Android", or via some other mobile phone application.  I especially like the "via text" and "via email" ones.  What is that all about???

I love these people.  Well, the ones who only post status updates on their phones, but never bother to read their News Feed.  They want to share THEIR stories with the Facebook world, but never take an interest IN the Facebook world.  And then they wonder why they miss things.  Don't you get it?  Don't you know how all this is supposed to work?

Look, it would be nice to see some feedback from you.  You know, a comment or a "like" every now and then.  Ooooh, here's an idea!  How about signing on to a computer once on a while?  Which brings me to my next point ...

Has the use of Facebook Mobile and apps of the like ruined the Facebook experience?  I think, perhaps.  If the only way to access the networking site was the traditional way -- on a computer or mobile web -- we might just see more quality content, and definitely more reciprocation (<----- there's my favorite word again!).

I know in today's world everything is rush-rush.  We just barely squeeze in a status update before having to get back to work.  But come on, if you're not going to use it correctly then don't use it at all!