}

DEAR DANIELLE

Dear Danielle,
I have been dating a guy for 2 months who is perfect on paper. He runs a successful restaurant business, is attractive, chivalrous and extremely giving and affectionate. To top it all off he comes from an insanely wealthy Jewish family and I would be set for life if I married him. He just told me he wants to take me away on a ski weekend vacation to Colorado. My hesitation is, there is no “va-va-va-voom.” I don’t feel insanely attracted to him and there isn’t much sexual chemistry. I am trying to be patient and give it a shot, and he is doing everything right, but something is still not sitting right with me. What should I do?
Signed,
“Dating and Confused”

Dear “Dating and Confused,”
He sounds like a fabulous guy. Stop over thinking things and let the romantic chemistry and sexual spark naturally develop. If 6 months go by and there is still no spark, re-evaluate things. But, maybe you are putting up an internal block to fully falling for him? No guy you meet will be perfect, and although chemistry is crucial to a lasting relationship, relationship dynamics can evolve over time. Be patient and not as judgemental. When your mind starts over analyzing every interaction with him, remember – only through living life will the correct path for us be brought into clarity.

Danielle will answer your questions about family, relationships, careers, religion, love and life – write to her at deardanielle@gmail.com

Latest posts by danielle (see all)

63 Comments

  1. Zvi

    1/1/2010 at 4:00 pm

    How many singles that come from ‘insanely wealthy Jewish’ families run restaurant businesses? You better hope he doesn’t get wind of this letter.

  2. froylein

    1/1/2010 at 6:14 pm

    Zvi, I suppose this is a satirical piece of fiction.

  3. LB Chasid (in La)

    1/2/2010 at 10:29 pm

    Dear Abby,

    Sex is the deal breaker. Sounds like a shallow life. Unless you are having sex 24/7 what about the rest of life together?

    Sincerly,

    No one cares about this kind of stuff on Jewlicious.

  4. ck

    1/3/2010 at 12:47 am

    …says the guy who is already married and no longer has to concern himself with dating issues. Lighten up LB Chassid!

    • froylein

      1/3/2010 at 3:51 am

      Is this not meant to be satire? ……….

      • ck

        1/3/2010 at 12:04 pm

        No froylein. It’s not satire and there is merit to the advice. Are you suggesting every woman should settle for nothing less than va-va-voom?

  5. froylein

    1/3/2010 at 1:04 pm

    CK, I’ve told you in private, but it appears you wish to take this public. So be it.

    What I suggest is that an advice column should be written by somebody qualified to do so, and when I suggested one tongue-in-cheek months back (after realising the blog’s got qualified contributors at hand), you shrugged it off.

    Therefore I thought that the post was meant satirically on top of the advice given being outrageous.

    Relationships aren’t all about sex, but to get to that point, there has to be a relationship to begin with. A one-sided attraction met by the realisation – to the face – that feelings are mutual while in reality the mutual feelings are based on attraction to the social status and not the person would make any decent person suggest to maybe re-evaluate things swiftly as a matter of fairness towards the hopeful potential partner.

    All studies concerned with attraction among partners in heterosexual relationships indicate it’s a matter of a fraction of seconds for women to determine whether they can consider a man a possible, future sex partner.

    I’ve nowhere said that women should settle for sex, but I don’t think today’s social realities make for them settling for bank accounts either.

    Closing your eyes and thinking of England is the social reality of the past.

  6. ck

    1/3/2010 at 1:27 pm

    I shrugged it off?? Was that when I was feverishly ill? Because I sure don’t remember!

    As for the instant attraction thing, some people are just slow burners. Man, if I had to count on instant attraction for my social life, I would spend a lot of time alone. Potential partners need to spend a lot of time with me to get to know the ck inside, because on the surface, well, I won’t mince words, I look like a scary thug. The situation isn’t analogous but somehow I find myself in sympathy with our Little Lord Fancy Pants with his Fancy resto business and his Fancy Ski Trips to Colorado. Maybe he too is a slow burner that “Dating and Confused” should be patient with. I’m just saying is all. I like Danielle’s advice here. Give it some time. Seems reasonable.

    • froylein

      1/3/2010 at 1:44 pm

      I do remember and in detail, too, what your exact reasons were for rejecting the suggestion.

      I’m not talking about becoming friends but sexual compatibility. Women, literally, can smell whether a man is sexually compatible to complement their genetic make-up.
      This guy described in the case above isn’t slow or he wouldn’t be successful in a business that relies heavily on social interaction. He sounds like a great guy, but not for the letter writer.
      Don’t waste any more of his precious time and emotional resources and groom a friendship before things turn awkward.

  7. Tom Morrissey

    1/3/2010 at 2:09 pm

    What froylein said. Danielle thinks the correspondent overanalyzes, when in fact she’s (quite sensibly) trying to get outside her own head and understand the sexual interaction. Anyway, if he weren’t rich and Jewish, one suspects the advice would be very different.

  8. beth

    1/3/2010 at 2:41 pm

    This feels pretty shallow. While sexual chemistry is important, I agree with Tom in his assertion that if said bachelor wasn’t rich it would be a “don’t let the door hit your face on the way out” type situation.

    • ck

      1/4/2010 at 1:32 am

      There’s a bigger issue involved here Tom and Beth. The bigger issue is that of instant attraction as a necessary prerequisite for the contemplation of a longer term relationship. Now I know they’ve been seeing each other for two months but I think the fact that he’s wealthy is a red herring. I think the woman in question should give him a chance – maybe 6 months is a bit long – but certainly more than the 2 months they’ve been seeing each other! I say this on behalf of all men, myself included, who do not make a spectacular first impression. Seriously, if all the women I have ever dated did not give me a chance well… lets just say I might as well have joined a Trappist Monastery. Just call me Brother ck.

      • froylein

        1/4/2010 at 2:54 am

        CK, again, it’s not about learning about personality but determining sexual compatibility. If it’s not there, it will not come. You can get used to forcing yourself to sleep with somebody, but really, is that a relationship of the meaningful, loving, and respectful kind?
        The letter writer clearly admires the social status and looks of that guy, but where do you see her making any substantial comments on his personality other than in character traits that are linked to him forking over $$$? Could it quite possibly be that she’s aware he’s a trophy? The advice points in the same direction, and I’m seriously appalled by it. This is not about a relationship where dynamics have changed after a while and somebody’s seeking advice on how to grow back together.

        • ck

          1/4/2010 at 4:36 am

          Froylein: So you correlate a loving, meaningful and respectful relationship with immediate sexual magnetism? Does that really make sense?

          • froylein

            1/4/2010 at 4:44 am

            That is not what I said. Again, women can determine within a fraction of sections whether a man is a possible, future sex mate as their genetic make-ups complement each other. Women can literally smell that. Just as little as person’s genetic make-up will change will a woman find a man more sexually attractive after a while.
            The days when women were legally represented through either a first-degree male relative or their husband have thankfully been gone for a long while. For a longer while even, women have been able to pursue studies and careers. “Faking it” (deliberately) for the sake of a social status, a wealthy catch etc. is pretty much whoring yourself out. If that were the mutual agreement (as it was not uncommon till the 1950s), so be it, but matters are obviously one-sided in this case.

  9. themiddle

    1/4/2010 at 5:05 am

    I liked the advice in this column.

    Give it time. Give it a chance. Why not?

    • froylein

      1/4/2010 at 5:13 am

      Why not?

      The letter writer is clearly not into the person but his social status. That is apparent throughout the letter. All qualities of character described are directly linked to him spending money on others. On top of that, there is rock-solid knowledge that sexual compatibility does not develop over time.

      • ck

        1/4/2010 at 6:06 am

        Money related attributes:
        1) Runs a successful business
        2) Extremely giving

        Non-money related attributes:
        1) attractive
        2) chivalrous
        3) affectionate

        Only 40% of the “qualities of character described” can be linked to any pecuniary personality traits. Running a successful business also speaks to his level of responsibility and other non-pecuniary attributes. 60% of the cited positive features have nothing to do with money. Perhaps the focus on that issue is more reflective of our predispositions than hers. That having been said, I’m glad the women I have known haven’t relied on their first impression of me when deciding whether or not to pursue further romantic entanglements.

        Yes. I know she mentioned that he comes from a very wealthy family. But that’s not him.

        • froylein

          1/4/2010 at 8:28 am

          Since when has “attractive” (as in looks only as we learn from the elaborations) been a character trait? And that this woman pretty obviously links “affectionate” and “chivalrous” (as I’ve learnt, not even most European women have got the faintest idea of what “chivalry” actually means) to her interests in money matters has not only appeared to me but to other readers I’ve been in touch with off the blog that couldn’t believe that something like that would go up on Jewlicious – and that is on top of her lamenting a lack of attraction, mentioning the wealthy family and contemplating “be[ing] set for life” through marriage after only two months (!) of dating.

          Running a successful gastronomy business also speaks of his ability to connect and interact socially; a quality of his you doubted earlier.

          But again, sexual attraction does not grow over time. Either the compatibility is there or it isn’t. Prostitution is not the answer to the shidduch crisis.

  10. AlexK

    1/4/2010 at 11:29 am

    If you don’t have a sexual attraction to your partner, you will have one for other partners. It’s that simple, so I wish these two pretenders good luck with their status based marriage.

  11. Tom Morrissey

    1/4/2010 at 11:48 am

    I’ve seen several marriages that made a lot of sense in a resume- matching, to-all-external-appearancss kind of way, fall apart painfully over sexual incompatibility. No one should risk heading down that road.

  12. AlexK

    1/4/2010 at 12:14 pm

    Sometimes humans have to admit that we are at times more animal than we think we are. 🙂

  13. froylein

    1/4/2010 at 12:25 pm

    Sashka, Happy New Year! Some humans are like shashlik, with a stick up… 😀

  14. AlexK

    1/4/2010 at 12:59 pm

    Same to you. Very true!

  15. ck

    1/4/2010 at 5:12 pm

    OK so without getting into details, I had a friend. Let’s call him Calvin. And Calvin met Rivka. At first Rivka resisted getting into a relationship with Calvin but Calvin pursued her for a year. In that time, they got along great, spoke often, had a great connection but Rivka did not want anything physical. One day, perhaps under the influence of certain substances, Rivka allowed herself to get physical with Calvin. Thus began what Rivka described as a mind blowing physical relationship that complemented their “friendship.” Apparently this scenario is not so unusual. How does one explain that froylein?

    • froylein

      1/4/2010 at 5:43 pm

      Self-deception due to conditioning. “Substances” not unusually have that effect. ‘shrooms are particularly bad in that regard.

      Have I never told you about the guy that goes into fetal position whenever he sees a cat now?

  16. themiddle

    1/4/2010 at 5:40 pm

    Mind-altering substances?

  17. Ephraim

    1/4/2010 at 6:32 pm

    I don’t often do this on matters other than culinary, but I kind of agree with froylein here.

    I’m not saying that sexual attraction could not develop over time. When I first laid eyes on the woman to whom I’ve been married for more than 35 years, I did not think she was a raving beauty. But things seem to have worked out. We actually did get to be friends first and then just sort of one thing led to another. But I digress.

    The “Run screaming in the other direction” siren-complete-with-flashing-lights thing in this letter is that nowhere does she say she actually likes the guy. He’s “perfect on paper”, nice, successful, and comes from a rich family and she would be “set for life” if she married him. There’s nothing wrong with being concerned about the future economic well-being of one’s family, and if she were just a gold-digger, she would marry him and would never have written the letter. But she is obviously upset that in spite of it all she just isn’t that into him. In my book, that’s all she wrote. If they do get married, it will be a disaster, and it will all be her fault, pretty much.

    What she’s saying is that in spite of the fact that she WANTS TO BE attracted to him, she isn’t. This bothers her because he’s obviously a catch (on paper). So she’s considering trying to do all it takes to be attracted to him when she obviously isn’t.

    Like I said, she doesn’t even say that she likes him. For his sake, I hope to G-d they don’t get married, because she’s sure to cuckold him if they do.

    • ck

      1/4/2010 at 7:58 pm

      Oh my goodness. We have ascribed a lot of negative traits to this woman. If she was a gold digger, she wouldn’t even think about it. She obviously has some conscience. In none of this discussion is there an admission that it’s even remotely possible for sexual attraction to develop over time. That’s what I take umbrage with.

      froylein: The substances involved are not the kind that cause anyone to go into feral positions. The relationship was long term and very physical, still going strong as far as I know. And without the benefit of substances. Self deception and conditioning? Are you suggesting Rivka was brainwashed?? Are people that easy to manipulate? If so then I better get me some substances… and then please point me to Bar Rafaeli!

      • froylein

        1/4/2010 at 8:19 pm

        CK, lately you’ve made it a habit of suggesting I had said things I hadn’t actually said by turning them into mock rhetorical questions. I think you can do better than that.

        What I’ve said was an explanation in response to your question namely that substance use can cause self-deception through conditioning. To clarify, one time abuse can suffice to pull the trigger, figuratively speaking, when a certain stimulus appears. There is no need to keep taking substances to cause such an effect.
        Not saying that this is it, but you asked how this could be, and there is a possible answer.

        I wonder whether any conquest made “under the influence” is actually worth considering a conquest, but that’s a different discussion altogether unless you wish to suggest to the letter writer to spur things with the help of prosecco or whatever second-rate alcoholic beverage kids these days believe to be classy.

        You may take umbrage with the notion that sexual attraction from women to men does not develop over time, but that’s rock-solid science. Like it or not. Women are more discriminating for a reason when it gets to mating.

  18. Tom Morrissey

    1/5/2010 at 11:00 am

    The real danger for the letter-writer is that it’s possible to rationalize the absence of sexual attraction; minimize its importance; or even actually convince oneself that it exists when it doesn’t. She’s being encouraged to engage in one or more of these rationalizations, essentially because the guy is a macher who would impress her parents. This is really, really bad advice.

  19. DearDanielle

    1/7/2010 at 12:49 am

    UPDATE—-
    The letter writer has now been dating the same guy in question for 3 months. After relaxing and giving the relationship a chance, she has come to admire his personality and good nature and a great sexual connection has developed. She has told me they are “falling in love.”

  20. Tom Morrissey

    1/7/2010 at 2:18 pm

    I guess money really is an aphrodisiac.

  21. Tom Morrissey

    1/7/2010 at 3:08 pm

    All along I thought it was my natural charm.

    • themiddle

      1/7/2010 at 3:21 pm

      That’s harsh, but I sympathize – I have to rely on my good looks.

  22. Tom Morrissey

    1/7/2010 at 3:29 pm

    Once the Nasdaq gets back up to 5000, you and everyone else should be OK. They don’t call it a bear market for nothing.

  23. Tom Morrissey

    1/7/2010 at 3:39 pm

    I don’t make this money for me, froylein– it’s to attract chicks and make sure the world doesn’t run out of Catholics.

    • froylein

      1/7/2010 at 3:56 pm

      See, why can’t you just, eh, make yourself a little more attractive and CK a happy man?

  24. Ephraim

    1/7/2010 at 5:14 pm

    An old joke:

    A stunning beauty walks into a party on the arm of a old, fat, bald, hook-nosed, hunchbacked dwarf with a limp. She is sporting a dazzling necklace, the centerpiece of which is a gigantic, flawless diamond of astonishing brilliance.

    All the women crowd around ooh-ing and ahh-ing. They ask about the diamond.

    “This is the famous Lifschitz diamond”, the beauty says. “It’s one of the most sought-after diamonds in the world but it comes with a curse”.

    “A curse? What kind of curse?”

    “Lifschitz”, sighs the beauty, indicating the dwarf on her arm.

    I’ll be here all week, folks. Try the veal!

    • froylein

      1/7/2010 at 6:00 pm

      I’ll tell Rabbi Yonah to book you for the festival. 😉

  25. JR

    1/7/2010 at 8:59 pm

    This is the stupidest, worse advice ever.

  26. AlexK

    1/8/2010 at 12:11 pm

    “and a great sexual connection has developed”

    That’s what she said! Oof.

    No, but seriously. We only know that she thinks it’s great. I’d like to know the guy’s opinion.

  27. Grand Muffti

    1/9/2010 at 9:08 pm

    CK said:

    “If she was a gold digger, she wouldn’t even think about it. She obviously has some conscience. In none of this discussion is there an admission that it’s even remotely possible for sexual attraction to develop over time.”

    You’re right, CK. She’s a conflicted golddigger!

    Dear Danielle. The Muffti is dating this rich woman he isn’t attracted to and has no chemistry with. However, the Muffti made this great ‘on paper’ list which includes being set for life, and as stated above, she’s rich. Of course, if she wasn’t rich, Muffti would head for the hills coz who the fuck wants to be in a relationship with someone who is poor, sexually unnattractive and with whom you fail to have chemistry. Luckily for this woman, she’s loaded which, as mentioend above, meets the Muff’s ‘on paper’ criteria.

    Please tell the Muffti that what he is doing is ok. Preferably in vapid cliché form. Muffti doesn’t like to think deeply and seeing a familiar empty phrase relieves him of that burden.

    Thanks in advance,

  28. Grand Muffti

    1/9/2010 at 9:09 pm

    (now that’s satire!)

    • froylein

      1/9/2010 at 9:41 pm

      Everybody knows that only Muffti can charm women with his personality.

  29. Grand Muffti

    1/9/2010 at 9:49 pm

    Thanks Froylein. Muffti is less confident. That’s why he tries to look good ‘on paper’ and hopes that Danielle will convince the babes to stay with him.

    • froylein

      1/9/2010 at 9:51 pm

      Would I increase Muffti’s chances of getting meaningfully laid if I wired a few solid Euros?

  30. Grand Muffti

    1/10/2010 at 9:42 pm

    It may meaningfully increase the chances of getting laid but it wouldn’t increase the chances of getting meaningfully laid.

  31. froylein

    1/11/2010 at 12:06 am

    Muffti should never underestimate the value and “depth” money can add to sexual intercourse.

  32. ck

    1/11/2010 at 1:13 am

    Man then I have been having very, very shallow sexual intercourse indeed!

  33. Ephraim

    1/11/2010 at 3:47 am

    I’m disappointed in you, Muffti.

    You’re a philosopher, right?

    Getting laid is, in and of itself, meaningful. I would expect you, of all people, to know this.

    As a friend of mine once said: When it comes to canoodling, Quantity IS Quality.

    Or, as Woody Allen said, there is no such thing as a bad orgasm. Some orgasms may be better than others, but it is impossible to have a bad one.

    • froylein

      1/11/2010 at 11:22 am

      CK, I’d love to comment on that one, but modesty forbids.

      Ephraim, have you met Muffti yet?

  34. Grand Muffti

    1/11/2010 at 11:19 am

    Touché E! Muffti would never match wits w master woody.

  35. Ephraim

    1/11/2010 at 2:32 pm

    Nope. He’s a bit too far North for us to make an easy connection.

  36. froylein

    1/11/2010 at 3:41 pm

    Make it happen! Muffti is great fun.

  37. Ben-David

    1/12/2010 at 3:01 pm

    Make what happen?
    Boy am I glad I didn’t join in this thread…

    • froylein

      1/12/2010 at 5:06 pm

      Ephraim and Muffti are supposed to meet as Muffti could need some role model.

  38. Pingback: Settling? « Dear Danielle

  39. pesach 2010

    1/20/2010 at 10:16 am

    Make what happen?
    Boy am I glad I didn’t join in this thread…
    dido!!

  40. mohammed rahman

    10/1/2010 at 9:36 am

    I found your email address on the internet and i saw that you want a relationship with someone. I want you to consider that your problem has been solved with the spiritual power of this Ring. It is a great powerful Ring of love that when you fix it in your finger, whoever sights you or you shake hands with must automatically fall in love with you faithful,kind,loving.

    This Ring has been existing for over 50 years now. The gem stone that mounted on top of it is found in a River called Whanganui River . The Ring is called the WHANGANUI RING OF LOVE.
    If you approach anybody with this Ring, he or she must surely obey your command and your request. If you are looking for a new job, fix the ring in your third finger and proceed to the office where you are looking for the job. You will be so surprised how you will be welcomed and received in the office.

    If you are contesting for any election post, the power of this ring will attract the heart of the people to you. You can also consider yourself to be rich because of the power of love of people towards you.

    Attached to this message is a picture of the Ring so that you can see how it looks like.
    At the ancient time past, i started the great spiritual research to get hold on this great power in the lam light so that the suffering of human-being will be benefited with this supreme force that is the only and only source of success for the human being in the world it is great treasures.If you are interested please respond.it attract the heart of the people to you for Love.
    Best Regards
    CONTACT.Abdul Rahman
    International Astrologer and Psychic Adviser
    mohammedrahman6@yahoo.com
    Tel; 234 803-064-9883
    Note: if you send a email and there is delay in responding , you can send me a text message to my telephone number by stating your name and your email address, or you call me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: