Google+ Survival Guide

We have Google Earth, Google Reader, Gmail, Google News, Google Maps...What's next? Google Galaxy? It's looking that way. How about a social layer? Well, okay!

From the last few weeks, does this conversation sound familiar to you?

"Anyone have an invite to Google Plus?" (Editor's note: usually listed as Google +)

"Hey...can you give me an invite to Google +?" (Editor's note: usually when you find out a friend has a few)

Having an entrepreneurial spirit, and knowing several sole proprietors and small business owners in the New York City area, the question I often get, or maybe even a matter-of-fact statement is..."I don't get it." I used to get that about Twitter, but now the item I get questions on is Google Plus, or Google +.

I have to say, even I am overwhelmed with this new technology. But Google +, like many other social media, has its pitfalls yet has it's bonuses as well. Since it's been released and widely sought out, I have had time to look at it and play with it. Like many other tools, there is a learning curve, but there's also been a ton of literature out on it as well, so allow me to digest it for you.

**As a disclaimer, I took a step back from Facebook and even Twitter for a short time (but it's tougher for me to stay away from Twitter, for whatever reason) to try to understand it better and process it all.**

From a marketing standpoint, businesses have been using Twitter campaigns to get their company message out to the masses as well as interaction on Facebook pages. Google + is trying to take the guesswork and tediousness out of those elements. I mean, if you think about it, having to manage your Twitter account and Facebook page as not only a writer or casual user or even a business owner, it takes a lot of time. David All, the Chief Creative Officer at David All Group, says there are six things marketers need to know about Google +.

Two things out of this list that can hold for businesses and personal use are creating "circles" and the "hanging out" feature. Circles are similar to "groups" you can create in Facebook, but it's supposedly easier in Google +, as you can take more control over it. Another cool nifty aspect of Google + is the hang out feature, as you can actually now have video chats with up to 10 people at the same time. Since I am pretty Attention Deficit Disorder about this stuff, I doubt that would be helpful to me...but Facebook recently added a video chat layer with Skype. Apparently, this layer is synonymous with "jumping the shark." But of course, since I believe that blogging is a dying art form (as I'm blogging about it), video chats could be indeed the next wave of the future.

Mostly, a lot of what All brings up is common sense. I've said before that I took to Facebook like a fish to water since it was visually appealing and easy to use. Like Twitter, which had a larger learning curve for most people, Google + gives you what you want out of it.

All suggested that Google + may be too new to fully generate marketable content for businesses. After all, if you think about it, it took awhile for that to happen for Facebook. So for personal use, Craig Kannalley suggests starting small, by linking to friends and family first. This was easy since I am on most Gmail lists, so anyone who had my gmail account was able to reach out first. Similar to how Facebook started to work when you were able to reach out to people you didn't know but had common interests, Google + can provide the same cushion. The circles can be helpful in organizing your interests, and providing interesting content (which was another thing David All suggested, for engaging others in your circles). The common thread is to provide and filter interesting content to your masses.

The biggest piece of advice is to not treat Google + like Facebook. Christine Trapolino suggests that if you don't follow people you don't already know, you're going to get bored. How many times have I suggested that Facebook has jumped the shark by seeing the same filter of friends administering the same content or similar thoughts over and over again? I can get that from Twitter during a sporting event, as an example. And in a more digestible fashion.

While you love your friends and family, chances are, you might get a little bored with the trappings of it. Trapolino says if you engage with users you don't already know, you are getting a fresh perspective on passions or things you might not have even thought about.

Lastly, this Mashable column has it pretty much laid out in its aptly titled "Google Plus Guide" by Ben Parr. It's taken all the guesswork out of Google + and has given it to you in lay terms.

Most of all, Google + doesn't seem to be going anywhere, so I am not quick to discount it just yet. I mean, if I'm taking a Facebook vacation in order to understand it better, chances are it's going to be something I might grow to like better, kind of like when I liked Facebook better than MySpace, now Twitter in some ways better than Facebook.

Atheists Believe (In Something)

This will probably be the first and last time you might ever see me discussing my political or religious beliefs in this forum. Basically, I've had enough with thinking I need to change people's minds or whatever, because that's not my job. I think what I think, and I'm comfortable with that thought process and the steps that led me there. So I don't feel the need to discuss it unless people ask me, then I'm happy to provide whatever they want to know.

Anyway, my co-blogger Dee over at our sister blog Just Being Dee asked a question: If Not God, Then What? Now, unless she has other people in her life she considers a "sister" who is an atheist (ha ha), I believe she was referring to me and my belief system, or lack thereof as she says. Now, I'm not offended or upset by it, it's an honest question. When I started to respond to her post, though, I felt like many atheists need to spend a lot of time setting the record straight.

So I'll just throw it out there: I am a liberal, free thinking atheist. Yeah, there I said it. I'm not ashamed of it, nor do I hide this fact. This was a decision of several years of rational and critical thinking, even having been raised by a quasi-Catholic mother (though she's not practicing, and leans towards more agnostic thoughts now). The other side of my family are devout conservative Southern Baptists.

When I was in college, as many would attest I considered myself a feminist but also a conservative. People would often ask me how I could balance the two. Honestly, it wasn't hard. I was always more fiscally conservative, plus I was from New Jersey, which is a typically liberal leaning state, so even if there was a Republican governor, they supported some of my social beliefs like women's health and basic human rights. As I got older though, my social beliefs started to trump my fiscal leanings in the sense that they became more important to me. So that's why I tend to identify with more liberal thoughts now.

But my relationship with the Christian version of g-d is not that complicated, actually. I used to go to church every now and then. I read The Bible (which as an English major, I see as a fine piece of literature). I was told to believe in g-d so I did. But as I grew up, there were a lot of conflicting thoughts in my head, and even though I attended an all-women's Catholic college, I came to the conclusion that I was an atheist.

This decision was nothing to do with being flippant like "There IS NO GOD!!!" when something happens like a natural disaster or seeing suffering in the world if g-d is supposed to be "good," etc.

I consider myself a rational, critical and free thinker. Most atheists do. But when Dee questions what do they believe in, I have to chuckle because atheists do believe in something, actually very many different things.

Some atheists believe in evolution. (Editor's note: I was just told there is a faction called "naturalists," who knew?) I call it personally the "cycle of life," as all living breathing elements expire at some point. They eat things to survive, and then have to "fight it out" in nature so as not to cease to exist.

Now some folks (I'm looking at you, Christine O'Donnell) will ask "Well why aren't monkeys still evolving?" when people bring up the evolution theory. Guess what? Humans still evolve and still are. There's scientific evidence that humans are phasing out wisdom teeth in future generations. And it takes millions of years to get to that point. Plus monkeys are still evolving. It took us millions of years to get to where we are, so it will take millions of years to keep that progress.

I'm not going to say it's perfect but there's certainly more evidence pointing towards supporting a rational evolutionary process for not just humankind but animals as well. But it's just that: a theory. We don't know what came first: the chicken or the egg. But for people who point to g-d as the creator, my question is...well, who created g-d, then?

Atheists do have belief systems, they are just not theist or religious-based. For me, I believe, for lack of a better term, in the circle of life, but also in respect for other life forms. Respect for the Earth. Thinking and knowing that the world is bigger than just "me." There seems to be a faction that can't understand how we can be so comforted without having a "supreme being" way of thinking to save us. Well, I believe we have one life to live, I don't believe in the afterlife, I personally believe we are all worm food after we perish. It sounds scientific and cold, but this isn't sugar-coating, to me, what I think we all are once we leave this life.

Atheists are spiritual! I know, it can seem contradictory, but it goes towards the whole "world is bigger than me" thought process. Over at Columbus Circle, an Atheists group hands out pamphlets, and I just asked them flat out if an Atheist could also think of themselves as "spiritual." They looked taken aback, like they hadn't thought of it deeply themselves.

I chimed in and said, "You know, it depends on how you think of 'spiritual.' I'm not talking about having 'faith' but mostly to me spirituality can be part of a belief process and thinking that the world is bigger than me, having respect for all thinking, breathing life forms, etc."

Then I saw the light bulbs go off. One man told me, "I'm a vegan because I can't imagine hurting an animal or participating in that brutal industry, so I consider myself spiritual too." While I eat meat, I don't eat veal for ethical reasons. I also won't buy things as a consumer that I disagree with their practices. So that's my own version of spirituality.

I often categorize myself as "spiritual, not religious," simply because I don't want to upset my family members who are all deeply Christian based. But the fact is, you can be a good person and have respect for all breathing life forms and have a belief system, even if it isn't in the "biblical sense." And yes, that term was intentional.

More wars have been started as a result of religion and lack of respect for other belief systems. This is has been proved countless amounts of time. I'm not even talking about wars with other countries, but even wars within ourselves. Now, I know that this is a blanket statement, and I'm certainly not saying that ALL religions are like that. But I love how a Christian-based thought process will call out another religion for being "extremist" when there are plenty of extremists in Christianity too. It goes both ways.

As an atheist, I respect human rights, especially those who want religious freedom, as an example. I know, it sounds contradictory, but as I said above, it's not up to me to try to change people's minds. There's a lot of circular reasoning there and often defers to a g-d no one has seen. That's great for you, but for me, I've come to the conclusion that religion has done more harm than good.

But when it has to determine a war or killing others simply in the name of g-d is what I don't get. I mean, isn't g-d supposed to be an omnipresent peaceful being? Yet, there is a natural selection (for lack of a better term) for humans to engage in aggression. At the same time, we'll hear about holy wars.

To this atheist (and many others), it's a foregone conclusion that some religions' imaginary friends have caused more harm than good. And trust me -- it's not just outside us, our country has been just as bad with that historically. Even now, my favorite pastor Fred Phelps spends more time spreading around messages of hate and disgust, while being a "Christian." Most Christians I know don't waste their time worrying about marriage equality or telling people they are going to burn in Hell because they disapprove of their lives. But this guy does with a huge platform. Atheists are generally accepting of everyone...just not hateful people.

Lastly, Atheists are scientists. I think that's sort of funny to describe me as one, because I sucked at math and science as a student. But it's the only way to discuss rational thinking that comes to a conclusion. Charles Darwin constructed a theory of evolution. It's stood a test of time, although like many theories it has a lot of open ends and questions. But for the most part, it's answered many questions.

Atheists are good people! It blows my mind how many people think if you are an atheist, you are automatically a goth-music loving, vampire-looking, devil-worshiping freak. Uh, no! (Well, except the goth music part. I do love goth). I'm probably one of the most normal, down-to-earth people you would ever meet with a rational thought process who can see the bigger picture. We help old ladies cross the street, we check on our elderly neighbors in heat waves, we give up our seats on the bus or train to pregnant ladies or disabled folks. We're not all heathens. As long as we don't discuss religion, I'm sure we'll have more in common than you think...

So, Dee, I know this was a long answer to your simple question, but I feel like I need to set the record straight about how I came to this conclusion about my life. I'm very comfortable with this, and I didn't write this to be flippant or offend anyone. I just hope that you can embrace my way of thinking with respect, as I respect yours and others!

Unplug & Reconnect: The Challenge

Put the phone down. Get off the computer. Stop looking at your blackberry.

As the "better half" in a relationship (well, that's how my husband refers to me), there's always a period of disconnect when he needs to be on the computer, or I am on my phone. Heck, I know that when we go out to dinner or go watch a baseball game somewhere, I am constantly checking updates on my phone.

I could easily be TALKING to him. I could listen to his concerns or just hear what's going on his head. Well, my husband isn't much of a talker, but that's besides the point. The point is, he could be saying something to me, and I'll be going through the motions and checking my Twitter feed or checking into Foursquare when we go into an establishment.

So this should set up the story line where as a society we are more "connected" than ever, but then when it comes to our deeply personal relationships, we may be further away on some marks conversely. As an example, I conduct a lot of personal affairs on my iPhone and it was recently stolen. I had to replace it, but it was stressful that I would have my personal information out there for someone to see if they were able to hack into my phone.

And on the other hand, those of us who are super highly connected to our jobs rarely have a day off. While technology has made some task-oriented roles "easier," the amount of stress it has added to our lives is tenfold, twentyfold, I would even guess.

The fact is, even on our days off when we are supposed to be relaxing, there's always something to be connected to and it's rarely a personal relationship. In fact, it's mostly our personal relationships that get hurt as a result of this connectivity.

Enter Unplug & Reconnect, an initiative to (as their website states) "help us find a balance between our technology-laden, multitasking selves and our creative, emotional and spiritual needs — to benefit from one while sustaining the other." Now, I will admit that it's a bit ironic to launch an initiative to break away from your technology habits and have a supporting Facebook and Twitter account to go along with it! But as U&R's (in the "short hand") mission statement suggests, it isn't saying to break away from technology entirely, just take a break from it. Take a break, reconnect with your family, loved-ones, and friends, and not depend on technology so much. It causes a buffer, and there's a certain disconnect with having it around, even if you are using it to connect with family and friends.

It sounds easy, right? Yet, when I bring up an idea of doing a technology "cleanse" for a bit, I get a lot of jokes about "Oh, I don't think I can do that!" I'm not saying it will be easy, but it will cause you think outside of the box for building existing relationships, and making them stronger, then technology can balance out the rest.

My husband probably won't like that I'm saying this, but I'm willing to take the plunge and disconnect or rather "Unplug" from technology. The irony is, my husband and I met through social media, and we both blog. For both of us to truly unplug from it all, it will be a challenge! But then again, we did an elimination diet back in January when we eschewed dairy, wheat, gluten, soy, shellfish, caffeine, nuts, sugar and basically anything fun for three weeks. I was DYING by about week two, he took to it like a fish to water. Perhaps I will be the one with the bigger technology withdrawal problem!

It's not deprivation, either one of those detoxes whether it's dietary or technology-driven, but rather has you build on your strength from within and not disconnect emotionally or physically.

Are you up for the challenge? Take a look at U&R's blog post on Managing Stress (calling it an addiction, even!). I'm hoping to take a look into decommissioning my technology addiction for at least a weekend, especially when I do this food detox again, and plan a full report when I return!

To Like Or Not To Like: That Is The Question!

I was perusing my Facebook profile last night and I couldn't believe the number of connections I racked up in "likes"!  From restaurants and stores, to athletes and other public figures, my "likes" were more than I had ever dreamed possible.

And so, I started deleting some of them.  First off, to be connected to so many pages and people is not always a good thing. I know Facebook is a networking tool, but you never know who's really on the other end of the things we "like".  Secondly, many of the things I liked I have blocked from my News Feed because their posts are kinda annoying, which made me ask myself, "How much could I really like it?"

The other thing that bothers me about the whole like thing is that administrators incorrectly categorize the pages they create, which makes for a messy profile to a perfectionist like me.  How does "molten chocolate cake" fall under my activities section?  I know eating it is an activity, but come on...the actual cake itself?

Whether it's "becoming a fan" of a page (which was Facebook's old name for this feature) or "liking" something, now you don't even need to find it on Facebook to do so.  Pretty much anywhere on the web, you will find a "Like" button that will, as long as you're logged into your Facebook account, make you like either the link or the actual thing on your Facebook profile.  When you like a link, it appears in your friends' News Feeds, so that they may click on it and view it and/or like it as well.

Coop Dee Ville is guilty as well.  We have a Facebook page that we ask all of our readers to like.  We even have a link to it here on our blog.  And we also have a "Tweet" button for you to share our posts on Twitter as well. Many of you may be hesitant to click.  You have to be careful nowadays and know the tricks and secrets to liking things. Otherwise, you may assist in the spread of spam and viruses to your Facebook friends. So here's a little story followed by some precautionary steps you can take to protect your Facebook account and your computer...

The other day I clicked on a friend's link because I was curious as to what the picture displayed was, and next thing I know, it appears on my wall as me "liking" it. Now suddenly, I am connected to this link that I never even viewed and still have no idea what it was about. (Needless to say, I don't know what the picture was either!)

Because of things like this, it is a good idea to check your profile every now and then to make sure there aren't any unwanted connections.  You may also want to create a list of all the pages you "like", as I have, and block that list from seeing any of your personal information, including photos and location.  Of course, when it comes to your friends' pages, you like them out of courtesy, even if you don't really "like" them, and you hope the favor is returned.  But you can be less cautious when it comes to those.

The City Mouse

I live in a city environment. I don't own a car (though I used to). When I do drive, it's long distances, and with the advent of Zipcar, Hertz Connect and MintCar, cars by the hour have gas and insurance figured in. (I can reserve these cars, by the way, by using my phone and it saved my sanity visiting California in the winter, by not needing to rent a car on a daily rate but an hourly rate).

It's hard for me to understand the plight of my friends and family, the "country mice," who depend on their cars for their livelihoods. Robert Moses was really heralded for making the motor vehicle the "future," especially by building the freeways and infrastructure in the Greater New York area.

Now it seems like our reliance on our cars (because, you know, try to tell an American (s)he can't have their car!) has caused a double-edged sword. Cars can't operate without gas, and we are reliant on gas from foreign sources. As long as we are a car-dependent culture, this vicious cycle isn't going to change.

So perhaps we need to change our way of traveling in order to maximize not only fuel-efficiency, but cost-effectiveness as well. For me, traffic and especially parking in cities, really annoyed me. They still do. I like trains, but the local systems (NJ Transit especially) just likes to raise prices and not improve service. They are also pricey.

Enter the Megabus! Megabus, or Boltbus, to be more precise.

These are more niche area buses, that go to major cities in a megalopolis area, such as travel within the Boston - Washington, D.C. corridor.

When I was a country mouse, I'd do these drives by myself. The drawbacks of course are that I would need to schedule my time around the departures...but it's almost like flying, but on the ground.

I was always a little wary about these "curbside" buses, but they have been proven to be a safe and reliable manner of travel. There have been several high profile accidents with what they call the "Chinatown buses" which also do curbside departures but are less regulated and aren't majority owned by larger transportation companies.

The bonus part? I can text, tweet and email while on the road. Score! These buses have been fitted with WiFi and power outlets, so when I arrive, my phone won't be dead...and I'll have caught up on my emails.

Then when we arrive, I can Yelp a lunch place and start in on the FUN!

I feel for my friends who have no choice but to drive. For me, the answer is simple because I have options to get around but who wants to drive to Washington from New York City? Seriously, I've done it, and it's overrated. Let someone else do it!

But I realize that it's changed my views on owning a car and how much I really need to drive. It would be totally different if I lived by, say, where my mom lives. While there is a new mini mall opening up that's within walking distance (though I guarantee most people in her housing development will choose to drive there), I can see a McDonald's, a Walgreen's and Shop Rite in the distance...yet there's no easy way to walk there.

Here, I can see McDonald's, Duane Reade, several restaurants, and Trader Joe's, and can walk easily within a five-minute radius. For me, it's worth not having a vehicle and being reliant on one either. I know some people can't live like that but I have the luxury of doing so.

And I totally don't get pump stress. That's just lovely.

Perhaps car sharing and no-frills bus travel might sound like it's a combination of futuristic but taking a step back in independent ownership. With the advent of higher gas prices, perhaps it's not a bad idea to change our overall habits for medium-distance travel in this country.

Oh, So Savvy. Oh, Miso Savvy

As if social networking apps such as Facebook, Twitter and Foursquare weren't enough, now it's even easier for everyone to know where you are...and...what you're watching?

Over the past two weeks, I've noticed a huge increase in posts on my Twitter timeline and Facebook news feed from Miso (gomiso.com), the "social TV platform that makes watching TV more fun".

Similar to Foursquare, where users share their location with friends while collecting points and virtual badges, Miso (not the soup) lets users "check-in" to TV shows and sporting events they are watching.  It even lets you choose the season and episode, which is especially useful when watching a recorded show, such as on your DVR or VCR. (Does anyone even own a VCR anymore?)

What's next, an app for food?  We can call it "APPetizer"! Imagine checking in to pizza or key lime pie! Pretty soon our Facebook and Twitter profiles will go something like, "Denise is at Applebee's via Foursquare", "eating boneless buffalo wings via APPetizer" and "watching The New York Mets via gomiso."

 And then we complain about our privacy...

Is the Telephone Becoming Obsolete?

I used to think of myself of kind of an anomaly. I hate talking on phones or making phone calls, yet I have an unusual attachment (like most people I suppose) to having my cell phone on me at all times. But cell phones are mostly multimedia devices and hardly even operate as phones anymore. Sure, I text and receive calls. Usually if I need to get in touch with a friend, I will send a Kik message, or if I really feel like I want their complete attention, I'll write on their Facebook wall (via my phone of course). Which is so funny how communication has changed even in the past decade.

Just barely ten years ago, I had actually invested in my own desktop computer. Now, don't laugh, how did I survive prior to that? Well it was easy. I had a job and spent most of the day on the computer. They gave me a laptop too, so I would use that with an old school "dial-up" connection. With the advent of cable modems and DSL connections, I felt it was good to invest in a desktop so as not to disturb the use of the home landline. I barely used my cell phone, since I could barely get a signal even back then.

But one thing I hated was using the phone. I hated calling people. I always felt like I could be interrupting something. I shouldn't call too early -- they might be sleeping. If they have kids, double-the-trouble. The kid could have JUST been put down for a nap, and here I come, calling wondering what Mom was up to! Don't call during dinner -- they've just had a busy day at work. And forget after 10 pm. They might be gearing down for the night, and putting the kids to bed, or getting it on with their significant others. Fact is, if I needed to confirm just a minor detail, or ask to go to lunch, wouldn't a short message suffice? Bear in mind, this was just personal usage, and not business. I will always understand the need to talk to someone over the phone for business needs.

That's why I took to email and texting like a fish to water. The receiver could answer me at their leisure, and I wouldn't feel bad about disturbing their routine.

I think why I was so sensitive was that I always got perturbed when the phone would ring. I mean, I know it sounds bitchy, but if I was in the middle of something, and the phone rang, it was usually someone checking in. Not for nothing, but if I was in the middle of something, I don't want to be rude and be like "Oh, I'm scrubbing the toilet" or "Hey, I was in the middle of a book," since I should be happy someone is on the phone, caring enough to wonder how I'm doing.

Well, with the advent of all these bells and whistles on our cell phones, monthly cell phone bills have gone up, and the usage of landline phones have gone down. I mean, I speak from experience but I am far from the only one who I know is going through this. In 2007, the usage of mobile phones as the primary source of communication was around 13%. In 2008, I switched to using my cell phone as my primary source. I felt that having a landline, for me, personally, was just window dressing. I could easily call someone from my cell phone.

Here's the thing though: my phone rarely rang. Except for maybe my mom or my dad from time to time (although they are both texters now), it's been a long-ass time since I spent hours on the phone with someone. It really has nothing to do with my self-imposed "rules" for calling someone. It's mostly -- why bother? I can text them, Kik them, email them if the answer is not pressing, or send them a note on Facebook. I feel like there's more options than just to call. Even in the workplace, we have an "instant communicator" type of program for instant gratification, and there's always email. Even in emails, though, we'll say, "Hey, can I call you?" Or "Are you at your desk?" in case they try to call. At least then, you can prepare.

Turns out I'm not the only one who thinks like this. The New York Times had an article, that was a little on the hoity-toity with a "real housewives" feel to the people who were profiled in it, about how no one calls anyone anymore. Or that's the perception it was in this small sample set. But I have to say that I feel strongly about that.

Even Miss Manners had to weigh in on this conversation. She said that the telephone has never been a polite way to communicate. In sort of an ass-backwards way, it kind of is. But I guess if someone gives their number to another someone, chances are, it's implied that the invite is open to call one another. However, it goes back to my self-imposed rules about calling people. Even as they relate in the article, that if their phone rings at a certain time, their automatic thought is, "Ohmigoodness, what's wrong?" If I got a phone call around 10 pm, unless it was from a west coast area code, I'd probably be alarmed at first. Since mostly the people I know are getting ready for bed or gearing down for the night.

Text spending is even becoming more commonplace than cell phone minutes. This is how clueless I am about my cell phone minutes: I have the absolutely bare minimum of minutes I can use from my plan, and they have rollover minutes...I have NO idea how many minutes I have in all. I'm pretty sure that they would have to keep me around and will them to my children since I RARELY use my phone for phone calls anymore. My apps? My texting? That's where the big bucks come rolling in for the phone companies. Remember a few years ago, there wasn't a week that went by without some angry mother whose teenager had drummed up thousands of dollars in text charges.

All in all, I would say that the phone isn't obsolete, but rather it's evolving to what people's needs are. Like Alexander Graham Bell did once upon a time, like Thomas Edison and Henry Ford too, they've addressed a need for human efficiency. I know there will be needs and uses for telephones. It's devolving but in a good way.

Great Expectations

What is YOUR expectation level?

That's a question that's asked a lot of in the workplace. What is your expectation for this project? What is your expectation level for the team? What is your expectation level for yourself? Setting expectation levels are big in the corporate world.

As it is in relationships. Whether platonic, same-sex, romantic, workplace, or "beneficial" friends (you know to which I am referring), everyone has their own expectations set for what they want from each other. It's not exploitation or usage, as that may have sounded. In fact, if you don't set an expectation level with yourself in mutually beneficial relationships (not those kinds of "benefits" mind you), then your relationships on any level may suffer.

And of course, this is going to discuss what expectations we have set for platonic relationships. The age-old argument has been set to ask or rather tell that men and women simply cannot be friends. And you get differing opinions, on any end of the spectrum. Even in the movie When Harry Met Sally, the character Harry Burns argues with Sally Albright that the sex part gets in the way for platonic relationships to truly exist, only to change his mind ten years later and become friends with the woman he tried to get it on with earlier. Of course, in Hollywood it's never that simple as they become not only romantically involved but end up falling in love by the end of the film.

And as in Hollywood making those endings so simple and light, I think in the real world we might get caught up in those black-and-white-no-in-between statements because that's what we've been shown. See, I studied Shakespeare in college (who didn't?), but one of the ongoing themes in Shakespearean comedies especially is that everyone ended up together who you thought would end up together. Take Midsummer Night's Dream, where the faeries decide to mess with fate...then they switch their faerie dust around and everyone lives happily ever after. Now, I'm not saying that happily ever after doesn't exist...but it takes some setting of expectations from everyone involved.

Now, those of you who know me in real life must be shocked that I used a Shakespearean reference since I am not that big of a fan (I consider him the Stephen King of his day...and well, ask me about what I think of King...), but I will quote my "Shakespeare" and use a reference from Sex & The City to illustrate my point about relationships.

See, when Charlotte meets her soon-to-be-betrothed Trey in what she decides is a fateful moment, Miranda (the "cynical" one) tells her in the oft-quoted line, "Men are like cabs, when their available their light goes on. They awake one day and decide their ready to settle down, have babies, whatever, and they turn their light on. Next woman they pickup, boom, that's the one they'll marry. It's not fate, it's dumb luck." They go on to argue about luck, fate or whatever, to which Miranda succinctly suggests you have to get them (meaning "men") when their lights are on.

Many women can relate to this in romantic relationships. Especially those who may have been on the dating scene for a long time and may have trouble finding a man to settle down with. But it's more than - a lot of it is biology. It's been proven biologically that women are nurturing and can connect emotionally to men, and that can prove volatile if you are looking for something romantic and he is not. Not that men can't be nurturing (both my parents were equally as helpful when I would go through my kid illnesses), but most of us females have had experience where we think we can "read" them, but realistically it's not gonna happen.

One of my guy friends was seeing a woman, he was recently divorced and they knew each other a long time before connecting romantically. When I talked to her, she talked about how she was understanding, that she wanted to give him space. When I talked to him, he claimed that he liked the companionship but that it was smothering. Plus, as he liked to say, "She knows" I'm not into a "serious relationship." So I said, "Well, honey, that's all well and good that you've let yourself off the hook for hurting her feelings down the line...but you do know she's connecting with you emotionally and once that happens, she's going to be hurt when you decide you are bored." So he actually ended it shortly after.

Not because of what I said, but because he realized that he didn't want to string her along while he wasn't into a serious relationship. Of course, I could break out the single girl's bible of He's Just Not That Into You, when a guy tells you he's not into having a serious relationship...translation: just not with you.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but I think some tough love is needed to put things into perspective. I mean, if Suze Orman can do it with money issues, I can certainly do it with relationship issues! I am by no means an expert but I've learned a lot in dating, friendships and relationships on all levels and I just hope to impart some few kernels of what I think are wisdom. Stuff that I think would have helped me when I was single, younger or trying to balance things.

1) Yes, Virginia, men and women can be friends. Again, it all depends on expectation levels. I have maintained several deep relationships with men over the years, even though I'm married, and yes, even with a few ex-boyfriends. Someone who considers me his sister from another mister is someone I went out with when I was 19. In dog years, that was like a hundred years ago. We can watch sports together, talk about vacations, talk about our significant others (nothing gripey -- that just reeks too much of "emotional cheating," because if I can't tell my husband something...why on earth would I tell my ex-boyfriend from 100 dog years ago?), and talk about our jobs. We can have dinner together, we can have drinks. We truly value each others company. It was one of those things where we made a conscious decision that we loved each other as people, but couldn't last romantically. And out of everyone on earth, besides maybe my parents, my husband is confident that if I'm found lying in a ditch somewhere, that if I was supposed to be at an event with this friend, he knows that he is in that ditch with me, after defending my honor.

2) For those who have not had that experience, again, it's all about expectation. I had a "beneficial" relationship with someone on-and-off for three years almost. I never called him a friend with benefit though. Know why? We weren't friends. Even if we socialized, there was an underlying expectation (that word again) that we'd hook up. Are friends with benefits really "friends?" Or just someone with whom you have a set expectation? My friends would say - hey, at least it's gotta be comforting to know what to expect? And when I wasn't into a serious relationship, it sure was. But it could be confining as well. Sometimes, getting out of a comfort zone and repeating the same mistakes is what you need.

3) What I will tell you is a relationship that opened my eyes. A guy I thought I could and would be friends with. We dated for a few months. Yet, I realized that even though we were close, that he had a job offer in Texas that he was considering taking just to get a fresh start. Translation: without me in it. It hurt, but it made me realize our expectations were completely different. That was when I started to look at things from my life and what I wanted to do to make myself happy. In a loose paraphrase of something I read recently, actress Meredith Baxter related that she was at a point in her life where someone or something couldn't make her happy, she had to look within herself. Once I set expectations for my "me" relationship, it hurt that we wouldn't last but at least I knew it wouldn't.

4) Lastly, all relationships are volatile, as my friend Shoe Diva related today. We've written on Coop Dee Ville even that women can be each others worst enemies at times. I once read a book called Odd Girl Out which chronicled the inner workings of emotional abuse of women on women (even starting in grammar school). My mother would steer me clear of dysfunctional women she knew simply because they were mean and catty and would call their daughters "fat" when my mom would ask how they were doing. Why is it that men and women relationships get the bad rep? In fact, though I have perfectly healthy relationships with women today (Shoe Diva stood up for me at my wedding last year, and well, my coblogger and I, nuff said), the reason why I am so adamant that men and women can be friends is because for years that was all I had. Not to give a deft brush stroke about those behaviors, but I felt like I had more volatile relationships with the women in my life than the men in my life, whether I was romantically involved with them or not. Maybe it was because of expectations we set for ourselves in those relationships. Unfortunately though, sometimes some parties in a relationship want a "mirror," someone who will imitate them and agree with them in any circumstance, even if you want to desperately be honest and tell them they are making a mistake. Which to me, has been a downfall in my relationships personally: I am too damn honest, and sometimes I know it hurts people's feelings. But I know if I am wrong, I am not afraid to apologize. No, Ali McGraw - loves means saying you're sorry, at least sometimes...

So what's my point? Wait, is there one? Of course! Set some expectations for yourself and your relationships, on any level. If either side has differing expectations, no matter what gender, no matter what defined relationship, then you will be doomed unless communication is at the forefront. Even if you are on different pages, you might be in the same chapter. Sometimes, that's good enough.

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