The Fascinating Girl

Posted by Melissa M | August 25, 2009 | 80 Comments

D81E784F-9D55-4B8A-8F39-876484BFE8DA Take with me, if you will, a little trip down memory lane. It’s 1975 and I’m lying on my lavender ruffled bedspread in my lavender bedroom, hair tucked behind my ears, reading my favorite book and marking my favorite passages. At fifteen, I study this book daily, copy sections of it in my diary, memorize whole paragraphs, return to certain chapters again and again, and religiously follow the book’s teachings. Is it the Book of Mormon? No. The Bible? No. It’s not even Paul H. Dunn’s The Osmonds. It is, my friends, The Fascinating Girl by Helen Andelin, a seminal work that shaped the dating lives of single girls (well, at least mine) in the 1970’s.

If you aren’t familiar with The Fascinating Girl, allow me to enlighten you. Basically, while Fascinating Womanhood (by the same author) tells married women how to be alluring to their husbands, The Fascinating Girl tells single women how to catch a husband using their feminine wiles. One of the chapters is entitled, in all seriousness, “The Domestic Goddess”; some of the other chapters include, “Appreciate Him,” “Admire Him,” “The Feminine Manner,” and “The Six Stages of Winning a Man,” with the last chapter—“Securing Action”—focusing on getting a man to propose. I don’t have a copy of the book anymore (however, I just checked Amazon and, amazingly, the book is still in print—and yes, the cover is pink), but I do have the passages I copied in my diary as reference.

According to Mrs. Andelin (and I’m sure she’s a Mrs.), a fascinating girl knows how to be feminine; she wears ruffles, puffed sleeves, lace, satin, velvet, and pastels in order to have a “girlish” appearance. She makes deft, soft, gentle movements with her hands (picture me at fifteen, trying to make my hands look like doves flying); walks lightly, with her body “straight and supple”; has a gentle voice with a “clear, ringing tone” and a “musical” laugh (never loud); and has a “cooing” quality when content (not sure what that means). A fascinating girl never gets angry, except in a childlike way, stamping her dainty foot and shaking her curls and scolding her beau for picking on poor helpless her. Also, she has an air of “timorousness”—which embodies “pretty confusion,” and “self-conscious modesty”—and an air of “bewitching languor,” which has something to do with a purring cat. And, finally, a fascinating girl always makes her man feel smarter, stronger, and more capable than she is, so that he’ll want to protect, cherish, and, ultimately, marry her.

I can hear your guffaws. But at fifteen and, I’m afraid, for several years afterwards, I was this book’s most devoted disciple. Of course, at that age I wasn’t trying to secure a husband—heavens, I didn’t want to get married until I was at least eighteen—but I used Andelin’s advice to try to win dates and boyfriends. Sometimes it backfired: when I was seventeen, I stood in front of a tiny stream and batted my eyelashes coyly at my boyfriend, claiming I couldn’t jump over the stream without his help. He looked at me, one eyebrow raised, and stepped across the stream and kept on walking. But generally the boys seemed to like my girlish ways. By the time I got my masters at BYU, however, I’d dropped most of my fascinating pretense—and my doe-eyed, helpless, girlish roommate got most of the dates.

Anyway, that was years ago, so I thought this sexist, archaic dating advice would be long dead—we’ve evolved since then, right? True story: Last winter, when my BYU co-ed daughter told her roommate, “I would never dumb myself down to get a date,” her roommate replied, “Well, then you’ll never get married.” Turns out that this roommate has a copy of—what else?—The Fascinating Girl, which she takes seriously and which her mother gave her when she turned eighteen.

So, at the risk of triggering some virtual tomato and cabbage throwing, I’m wondering what the dating advice for women—and, particularly, LDS women—is like nowadays, and whether it’s really evolved significantly from advice given in the 1970’s. Are single women still advised to be friendly and upbeat and to have a sparkle in their eyes, to feign interest in whatever the man is interested in, to flirt and toss their hair and be coy? Are they cautioned not to be too outspoken or aggressive or too available and overeager, and told not to be disagreeable or cranky, even if they happen to be passing a kidney stone?

I haven’t read The Rules or other current dating advice books, but I want to know, what is the 2009 version of The Fascinating Girl—both the book and the girl? Is there a book comparable to The Fascinating Boy? (And no, such a book didn’t exist in the 70’s.) What makes some women more “fascinating” to men and vice versa? And in our LDS culture, is there some element of truth behind Andelin’s advice, after all?

Finally, I’d like to know if you ever employed certain, ahem, stratagems to meet and date members of the opposite sex or to “win” your husband/wife, and whether you still use them, now that your spouse is “won”?

That’s a lot of questions. I’d love to hear from those of you in the dating trenches as well as from those of you in the married trenches—and men, please weigh in, too, if you dare. I promise to be thoroughly fascinated.

Comments

80 Responses to “The Fascinating Girl”

Sage
August 25th, 2009 @ 4:41 am

Wow! That is so funny! I’ve been married 19 years, but I was always a bit of a tomboy and would rather hang out with the guys, than play coy. I liked to show my true self, whether covered in sweat with no make-up or whatever. I did wear make-up and curl my hair.

I remember my sil’s mother telling me not to let a guy know if I could fix something myself. I thought that was so dumb.

I married a guy who doesn’t mind that I love to use power tools. But he does wish I had nice fingernails! (never had a professional manicure!)
Jennie
August 25th, 2009 @ 5:03 am

I remember even as a very young girl thinking that it was important to be myself around boys. I didn’t want some guy marrying me thinking he was getting something else, since I tend to be outspoken, opinionated and “I can do it myself, thankyouverymuch”. The upshot was that I had zero dates in high school. Zero! I even went to the prom by myself.

I’ll bet that high school boys still love that “Fascinating Girl” stuff. With their weak self-esteems they eat it right up, I’m sure.

However I was engaged twice and married by the time I was 21. Some men like girls who are strong and smart. And if they don’t, you don’t want them anyway.
LDS Anarchist
August 25th, 2009 @ 5:08 am

Dang it! You beat me to this topic! I was going to write a post on Fascinating Womanhood on my own blog, but now you’ve messed up all my plans!

Oh, well, I guess I’ll just comment your your post…

On second thought (after writing a comment and then deleting it), I think I’ll stick to my previous plan of addressing FW on my blog. I’d need more than just the space of a comment to adequately dissect it.
Justine
August 25th, 2009 @ 5:08 am

If I were to be completely honest with myself, I think that my aggressiveness did play a part in how little I dated through High School and College. And it always bothered me, but I wasn’t very good at being coy.

I’m not really sure how much has changed. On the one hand, I hear more men pay lip service to finding a strong, powerful woman, but to walk around BYU campus, you’d still think a lot of the girls were kind of dingy. And it’s so ironic, because you basically have to split atoms to get into BYU, so there are no dumb people there, but I still see girls acting like dainty and helpless creatures.

But I’ve heard from more than one 20-something boy that they want a strong woman so that the “pressure is off”, and they can let the woman be the breadwinner (while they stay home and play video games).

Sorry, that was harsh. But that’s what I was told.
LDS Anarchist
August 25th, 2009 @ 5:10 am

Typo; it should be: I guess I’ll just comment ON your post…
Jake
August 25th, 2009 @ 5:59 am

My first thought on reading this? [expletive deleted] that [expletive deleted], give me a woman I can have an intelligent, adult conversation with.
traci
August 25th, 2009 @ 6:22 am

Wow!!! those Stepford Wives always look soooo happy don’t they? And they get soooo much done. How do they do it? They just amaze me. Maybe it’s the apron – does anyone know where I can get one of those aprons?

heheheheheheheheheheheeheheheheheheheheheheheheheheehehe
Emily U
August 25th, 2009 @ 7:34 am

Feminine stratagems? Never! I’ve always thought that if you have to act stupid and coy to get a guy interested in you, it’s not a guy you’d want to be with!

I didn’t date much in high school – I think I was more mature than guys my age at that point. But college was much better. I can’t believe a college student would have a copy of Fascinating Girl today – I hope she quits listening to her mother.
Leslie
August 25th, 2009 @ 7:49 am

Oh, I hear you. I obviously recived no such indoctrination and was raised that boys like smart girls (myth), however my arrival on the college social scene taught me that most girls had been taught otherwise. I was not skilled in the tricks and games- little did i know they had books and cliff notes ont he subject! I will readily admit though those tricks often got the dates, but I still wasn’t willing play the game.
Keri Brooks
August 25th, 2009 @ 8:34 am

My parents raised me to believe that I could do/be anything I wanted to, and they raised me to achieve to my highest potential. It never occurred to me to hide my intelligence/drive/ambition to get a date. They married young, but I don’t remember them ever giving me any dating advice.

I find that I have better dating success outside the church than inside the church. (I live in an area where the church is strong, so it’s not for a lack of guys.) The guys outside the church aren’t intimidated by my intelligence, education (I’m in law school), or ambition. It seems to be a big turnoff for the guys in the church, though. (Although, for all I know, it’s my age, not my education that’s the problem. I’m 27, which, while young outside the church is not young inside the church.)

I figure any guy I would have to play dumb for isn’t a guy I want to be with. I need and want to be authentic.
Michelle Glauser
August 25th, 2009 @ 8:42 am

Although I’ve heard from friends that I should not be so opinionated or outgoing because it intimidates guys (I haven’t listened), in the official church capacity I often hear things about how we should become our best selves–including working on education, gospel knowledge, hobbies, etc.–and the marriage thing will happen naturally.
Kevin Barney
August 25th, 2009 @ 9:04 am

You might enjoy this post about Fascinating Womanhood in the FLDS context:

http://bycommonconsent.com/2008/05/25/flds-freaks-and-geeks/
Justine
August 25th, 2009 @ 9:08 am

Michelle #11, you bring up a fascinating gap, so to speak. The church is all over education – for men and women. I’ve never ever heard anything from any contemporary leader that would suggest I should in any way demure my intelligence or abilities to placate my husband (or boyfriend).

And yet, it does seem to exist in our culture. There were definite overtones of it when I was in college, and I know some young girls who still struggle with it today. I wonder why that is.
Annette
August 25th, 2009 @ 9:10 am

I don’t know what girls are being told right now (although I have 3 daughters, and I’m doing my darndest to make sure they never dumb themselves down), but when I was dating in the early 90s, one of my best friends always dumbed herself down, and yes, she always got the dates.

I refused to do that. I rarely dated. (Shocker, right?) I ended up marrying a guy who didn’t bat an eye at the fact that I had a scholarship just like he did and was, yes, SMART.

My oldest daughter will be dating in 4 years. I swear, if she ever acts stupid, I’ll flip out.
Ian Cook
August 25th, 2009 @ 9:10 am

Unfortunately, this is the wrong place to find anyone who still agrees with a book like “The Fascinating Girl”. I must admit that, while I was still in the market, I was intimidated by a girl smarter than I am. I think it’s fairly common to look for a companion that is of the same intelligence level though.

One thing, just because you get good grades, doesn’t necessarily make you all that smart.
Jennie
August 25th, 2009 @ 9:14 am

Ian-true that. I’m super smart but got the worst grades EVER!
Sandi
August 25th, 2009 @ 9:22 am

This so funny, I had Fascinating Womanhood. If I could do one thing over, I would not be pushed into “getting” married, and I would drill into my daughters that you are not an old maid at 21 if you are not married. My grandchildren are being taught better. They are strong indpendent totally feminine young women. Thank goodness.
Kaye
August 25th, 2009 @ 9:26 am

I read this book, in the 70’s and also studied it religiously and tried to implement its teachings. I did get engaged while following its formula–I always thought it was very helpful. I’ve raised 4 daughters and 1 son since then. The gender lines have been confused and kids now days don’t know how to conduct themselves with the opposite sex. They don’t know how to attract each other. Personally I think we need to do some de-evolving and bring femininity and masculinity back into the picture. They do compliment each other. And as we read in the Proclamation to the World about the Family–The Lord intendend men and women to be different and to fill different roles. I think as parents we have the obligation to teach our children to respect their gender, to behave in feminine and masculine ways. I think it eases the process of finding an eternal companion.

one final thought–I think you can be a highly intelligent woman and still be feminine
Lindsay
August 25th, 2009 @ 9:33 am

I never dumbed myself down or pretended to be anything other than what I am (much), but I did try to be happy and upbeat and fun to be around on dates. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. I think the only truly manipulative thing I did was in regards to ex-boyfriends: any time I ran into them/their friends/family members, I’d put on a huge smile and say, “Oh my gosh, how are you? SO good to see you. My life is so great; everything is going amazingly well; I am very happy!” I just wanted to make them a little bit sad that they were no longer with the bright, oh-so-happy me. Judge as much as you want, but it worked every time.
Aimee
August 25th, 2009 @ 9:45 am

Hmm…I’m a believer that you can have the best of both worlds. There is nothing wrong with loving your man’s masculinity and loving your femininity and also being smart, strong, intelligent and independent. But not too much so. Its a balance between making your man feel needed and wanted and letting him know that you are strong at the same time. My husband knows I certainly can use power tools and put together furniture, wield a paint brush, and such, but he loves to do it so I let him. Sometimes we do it together but I always gush with praise for his work when we’re done. It makes him feel loved and appreciated. He knows I am capable of killing spiders and swatting at bees but he also feels great when I let him do it and coo at him “my hero”. You know what? My husband and I have a wonderful balanced relationship with no power struggles, great communication and a true deep and abiding friendship that is centered on the gospel. We NEVER argue, we NEVER disagree and it is not becuase I’m always bowing to his will. You see, I think that the feminist movement has done a disservice to women and men. Here we are discussing that to be feminine is to be dumb, coy, play games etc. When femininity is actually to embrace womanhood and motherhood and at the same time respect and honor manhood and fatherhood. There is nothing wrong with it. I dated A LOT in high school and after. I usually had different dates with different guys each night of the weekend, unless I was “going steady” with someone. The guys all knew me as a strong-willed, intelligent, AND fascinating girl. It IS possible.
Erin
August 25th, 2009 @ 9:49 am

As someone who has been in the singles scene (way) too long, my impression is that single men aren’t actively seeking out the dumb girls (whether really dumb or pretending to be) but their primary focus is to seek out the “hot” girls. Personality and intelligence tend to be secondary considerations.

Now, this is not to say that women who don’t get asked out aren’t beautiful but more often than not, they don’t fit the mold of what the majority of guys are seeking.

I have no interest in these types of books however because I have no interest in the types of guys who would fall for it. Sadly, that doesn’t leave me with much of a pool to choose from.
cahkaylahlee
August 25th, 2009 @ 9:57 am

When you are a physics major and a girl, you really don’t have the option of pretending to be dumb. I only wear make-up on special occasions like going on a fancy date or going out with some girl friends. I still managed to get married young. I think it was the well timed eyelash batting I learned from one of my most intelligent, doesn’t dumb-down for anybody roommates…she could sucker me into doing just about anything with those eyes.
Nicole
August 25th, 2009 @ 9:59 am

I am a VERY strong women and have never been afraid to share my opinions and can become very passionate about the things I feel. I never learned how to flirt and detested the idea of putting on a show for a guy. I definatley was on the opposite end of the spectrum. I ended up really hating the whole “courtship dance” and refused to participate. I rarely dated in high school (I would only date guys who wouldn’t want to make it a “relationship”) and never had a boyfriend until college because I hated what I thought girls had to become to “get” and “keep” a guy. However, I did want to get married and find that special man for me: one who would be a partner, a companion, an equal.

Soon after I came home from a mission (at 25) the man I would (very soon after) marry came into my life and basically didn’t care about my inability to flirt or act weak or “girly”. He is a very “Strong Man” and maybe saw me as a challenge–I was sure different than any girl he had ever met or dated! Two months later (yes, there was A LOT of chemistry) we were married and 10 years and 3 children later we are still challenging each other, growing together, and appreciating each others differences (when we don’t drive each other crazy).

What stratagem do I use to “keep” the man I’ve “won”? Well, my gut reaction is to respond that he very well better happily stick around, keep his eternal covenants, and make me happy doing it! However, if I phrase this question in a different way, the answer is that I am fiercely loyal and true to him and the life and goals we’ve carved out for ourselves. I am his greatest champion, but he also knows that I am honest and will let him know (privately) when he’s stepped over, or not towing the line. I am sincere in my compliments to him and he knows I admire him and his sacrifices and hard work for our family and for his commitment and devotion to us. I am still a “strong woman” and he a “strong man”, though we have certainly tempered each other. I am still not helpless or flirty, and he loves it that I can take care of myself and resolve issues and concerns without him. He also knows that his love and commitment and support fill a great intangible need that I have–that is irreplaceable. Oh, and the chemistry is still there!
Angela
August 25th, 2009 @ 10:12 am

When I was a sophomore in high school I purposely stopped taking honors classes. Although I told myself it was because most of my friends weren’t in honors classes, I think the real reason was that I knew the “smart” girls weren’t as popular and attractive as the ones not focused on academics. Luckily I had a history teacher in the 10th grade who insisted I take honors history my junior year and got me back on track academically. Even more luckily, I met my now-husband during my junior year and it was clear from the beginning that intelligence was important to him. From then on I didn’t feel like I had to be anyone other than who I was.

Even outside of the dating world, though, I do think LDS women occasionally get mixed messages about what it means to be a woman. (Well, ALL women get mixed messages about what it means to be a woman.) But I remember a general authority recently referring to his wife as “full of innocence” during conference, and although I know that phrase was meant as a compliment and I understand the positive sentiment behind it, I admit it left me a little dismayed. I’m certainly not innocent, nor do I want to be seen as innocent. I want to be seen as a strong, capable, informed woman who’s able to shoulder burdens and make hard decisions. All the women I look up to–righteous women–can be described that way. To me, “Innocent” is a term that carries a whiff of “Fascinating Womanhood.” It’s a word that, in the name of honoring femininity, strips women of authority and intelligence. It just has so much baggage, you know?

Is Julie Beck innocent? Sheri Dew? Chieko Okasaki? Patricia Holland? Were Emma Smith and Eliza Snow? Even Camilla Kimball and Marjorie Hinckley? I feel guilty, in a way, getting so worked up over an instance of vocabulary that was used with good intentions . . . but I also feel that such vocabulary can be confusing for Mormon females who are told they are intelligent and powerful on the one hand, but should project an image of being sweet and gentle and uncomplicated on the other.
jendoop
August 25th, 2009 @ 10:15 am

I am oh so grateful that I never even heard of this book until recently (from an older single sister who had it recommended to her by a man she was on a date with- ewww).

This may shock many, but I was myself when I dated- it seemed stupid to do otherwise. And thankfully I found a man who did the same. No mind games, it was something we both enjoyed in our relationship from the beginning. And is now a huge blessing in our 15+ years of marriage.

If you’re faking who you are, maybe the other person is too and before you know it you’re both married to strangers. My number one goal while dating? Have fun! IMHO I didn’t lack for dates because people enjoying being around me.

Makeup seldom touched my cheeks, and 20 years later I am grateful it didn’t, because I found an eternal companion who knew what my face really looked like and now I get complements on how young I look!
Queen Scarlett
August 25th, 2009 @ 10:23 am

I’m really curious what the guys think they have to do to win women… or if there is even any of that kind of work necessary… very curious. I really, really want to know.

I discovered, freshman year at BYU that the girls were shamelessly throwing themselves at the feet of any male they could find. There was endless baking of cookies, spending enormous amounts of time hanging around where the boys lived… for me – that was totally, utterly demeaning. I always felt that if a guy truly wanted a a girl – he’d make the effort. And if I wasn’t worth the effort – he certainly wasn’t the guy for me.

So I played it… coy. I didn’t throw myself out there like so many of my roommates and ward sisters. As a result – I didn’t date much … freshman year. Turns out the boys I did date as a boyfriend were all guys I had asked out on a first date. What the…?

Eventually I found my man… he told me that what attracted him most was my confidence… and he was attracted to me physically (duh-every relationship needs chemistry baby)… but it was my confidence. And… you know… he’s the one guy that I’ve actually felt comfortable completely being myself around… neuroses and all. But all that mincing around in a tinny voice… so NOT for me. I wanted to strangle those women.
Melissa M.
August 25th, 2009 @ 10:27 am

Hmmm, this is an interesting topic. First of all, I’m glad I wasn’t the only one who read/studied/followed The Fascinating Girl (sorry, can’t figure out how to make italics work). I’m also sensing that “feminine” means different things to different people.
Justine, I think you made a good point when you said that there seems to be a gap between what we hear from church leaders and what occurs in the culture. And my daughter tells me that there are indeed guys who want to marry strong, ambitious women so that they can stay home and play video games, so your observation isn’t harsh.
Kaye, I do think you have a point that our modern society has blurred the lines between the genders and that can be problematic.
Nicole, I appreciate your thoughts on partnership in marriage and what keeps you and your spouse committed.
Angela, love your thoughts. I agree with you that women like Patricia Holland, Sheri Dew, Chieko Okasaki and others—the women I’ve looked to as role models—are capable, strong, believing, confident women who seem far from demure and helpless. Thank goodness we have these examples!
I’m glad some of you men are chiming in, as well.
Thanks to all of you who have commented so far.
kyliem
August 25th, 2009 @ 10:50 am

I definitely agree that it seems people have different ideas about the meaning of “feminine.” To me, feminine doesn’t mean being unable to kill spiders or use power tools. It’s not smiling coyly, batting eyelashes, or being weak so a man can feel strong. The words “feminine” and “weak” don’t seem to me to go together. And I don’t think one person in a relationship has to appear weak so the other can feel strong.

But, speaking of different definitions of feminine, the first counselor in my home ward told me before I went to BYU that he thought women at BYU weren’t getting married as often as they used to, and he thinks it’s because they don’t bother to look good while they’re walking across campus. I remembered this comment one day after I stayed up until five working on a research paper, slept through most of my class the next morning, woke up late, and sprinted across campus exactly as I was to turn in the paper on time. People on campus joke about graduating with your “Mrs” degree, and I know people who are there for only that reason. They do still all bake cookies, slather themselves in makeup, and coyly flirt with boys in a rather outdated 1970s-style fashion. I’m not okay with that, and I feel like something needs to change, not least including our definition of “feminine.”

Sorry, I hope that doesn’t come across as inflammatory or harsh…I definitely have a HUGE amount of energy on this subject…
Plain Jame
August 25th, 2009 @ 10:57 am

I didn’t read through all the comments this time – so if my post is redundant I apologize.

Honestly I think that there are girls of all types. The full spectrum. I’m positive there are still women out there teaching their daughters this type of theory. Then there are women like my own mother that hardly give any advice at all… then there are women like my mother in law that has taught her daughter to never get married and that all men are evil nogooders, because of her own choices and outcome teach the opposite of the Fascinatin’ girl!
*sigh*
I think another great thing is that there are men on the other side of this spectrum that are in each corner too. There are the men that were raised by the type of mom that would shape them to look for the sweet corner-sitter type, and others that are out there looking for a woman that enjoys a good banter and debate.
I was NEVER the type to just sweetly sit there with a doe-eyed expression on my face, and I was a bit more on the opinionated side. I had dates, I had beau’s, but I had a lot of heartache too. That “fascinating” type? I absolutely don’t hate them – in fact many are my neighbors, and they do make wonderful mothers and wives. I typically don’t spend my girls-night-out with them though, if ya know what I mean.
I think it’s a great thing there is a place in this world for all types. If we were all the same what a boring world this would be…
Nan
August 25th, 2009 @ 11:11 am

I’m guessing that Aimee also happens to be drop-dead pretty. I’m just saying that guys are highly visual (as per Kyliem’s comment). My first few years at college I hardly every dated: my roommates were all taller, prettier and better at flirting. (For sure skills that make you a good eternal companion.) I did, however, end up with a lot of guy friends whom I still regard as great friends, though we have all moved on an married other people. When I got home from my mission (also in too many LDS circles a strike against you), I began dating more–the model-roommates had all gotten married off. I was able to get noticed. I’m afraid this is one of the most frustrating parts of masculine nature.

A few thoughts from GA’s are in order here: I think it was Elder Maxwell who said, “Be yourself; but be your best self.” So whether you are sportsy or smart or girly or extroverted or thoughtful or some combination of all of this and others . . . be your BEST self. Any woman who strives for this will glow with confidence and love of the gospel. THAT is attractive by any standards. Elder Oaks has done a couple of really great articles for the Ensign about the problems with modern LDS dating. He doesn’t encourage the women to dumb down in any way. He DOES however, encourage men to actually date and not just hang out (to this end, he discourages women from cooking when the guys just show up to hang out and make out); to choose activities that allow you to get to know your partner and don’t cost a lot of money; for women to give each guy who asks a chance and then to thank him for any time and money he spends on her. There were some other principles I forget, but it is probably worth looking up if you are a dating person. If he won’t court you before you are married, chances are really good he won’t court you AFTER marriage either.

And I wouldn’t marry a guy into video games for a million dollars. Not that I’m against supporting hubby in general–we avoided three years worth of student loan debt because of my degree. Playing dumb wouldn’t have been at all helpful there.
Merry Michelle
August 25th, 2009 @ 11:22 am

Although the FG and FW books have long been on my personal blacklist, this blog actually moves into territory a lot more complex than just acting stupid to get dates. Kaye #18 and Aimee #20 touched on it. There is power and strength in embracing our separate gender roles as outlined by the Proclamation to the Family. Obviously, there are circumstances and situations where we adjust a little, but we are children of God. Children of two different genders with specific gifts meant to compliment and work together (and not just drive each other crazy).

My main problem with the FW and FG books has always been the element of deception and manipulation–that I could beguile, coerce or control someone for my own personal gratification. And of coarse the 2 main assumptions that the books make–1)most guys are idiots in the face of a few tactics, and 2)you WANT to marry an idiot.

However,there is a BIG difference between understanding and using gender differences to our own personal advantage, and to our mutual advantage as a couple. Every couple naturally creates some sort of division of labor in their every day lives; some have to due with skills, some with gender, some with both.

On a spiritual level, I think most of us associate deception, manipulation, and beguiling behavior with the adversary. I didn’t want to “trick” someone into marrying me.
Melissa M.
August 25th, 2009 @ 11:41 am

Merry Michelle, you make some salient points. In fact, I’m enjoying all of these comments…..
Kathryn P.
August 25th, 2009 @ 11:50 am

Because I’m a close friend of Melissa M, I read all your comments. They made me think of the Bialowieza Forest which straddles the border between Poland and Belarus. I wandered through a section of this silent and still primeval forest a couple weekends ago. Our guide said that birdwatchers show up by the hundreds during the month of May to listen and watch the 270 varieties of nesting birds put on a wild show to attract their mates for the season. I liked Plain Jane’s comment which reflected that there are many varieties of females and perhaps it is OK for there to be different ways of attracting different types of males. Perhaps we need to be more like birdwatchers, who I imagine celebrate the fascinating variety in the bird kingdom. How boring and dull it would be if we were all exactly the same. It is also fun to evolve as a woman. I’m a much more interesting, colorful, and confident bird at the age of 50, than I was in my 20’s. But I love and appreciate the robins, the eagles,the flamingos, and even the peacocks in my ward. I will admit to avoiding the vultures on most occasions. Don’t try to ruin my analogy by explaining to me that male birds are the colorful ones who put on the mating show — I know that, but it isn’t fun to compare women to female birds who are dull and boring!
Andi
August 25th, 2009 @ 12:03 pm

I think there are lots of men out there who are interested in intelligent, smart, opinated women. I have 3 brothers who are all married to women I admire. Plus, I feel like I am a strong woman and that my husband likes that about me.

What he doesn’t like is if my opinions are more important than his, and that I’m so independent I don’t need him. Some of it for a man, is knowing that there is a space in your life for them. (He can kill the bugs anytime! )
Faith.Not.Fear
August 25th, 2009 @ 12:22 pm

Combining Merry Michelle’s and Kathryn P’s, I think that we need to be comfortable with being who we are as a Daughter of God!
Each of His daughters has amazing gifts, talents, personalities, just as each bird has their own. We need to be true to our self, not deceptive, so that we can attract the appropriate complementary mate — so we as swans or eagles or peacocks don’t wind up with… “turkeys?” (couldn’t resist!).
By being true to our eternal selves, we can hopefully attract their eternal selves, or see the “turkeys” for who they really are.
We can then swim, or fly, or waddle together eternally with less worry of hiding (or finding) a lie.
In dating, isn’t it better to know that what you see is what you’ll get?
Faith.Not.Fear
August 25th, 2009 @ 12:33 pm

Interesting thought — is knowing how to act on a date different than acting on a date?

For example, someone mentioned always trying to be upbeat and positive on a date — how to act.

In comparison, being nice to someone just so you can go to a particular concert — acting.

The first is ettiquette and Christ-like.
The second — rude, and as far from Christ-like as you can probably get.

Teaching our children the ettiquette and Christ-like, I believe, will help them better build the friendships from which good marriage relationships can grow.
Kathryn P.
August 25th, 2009 @ 12:40 pm

As a lover of words, I wondered about the comments regarding the word “innocence”, which obviously can mean different things in different contexts. I believe that when Neil L. Anderson said: “My wife, Kathy, is my light and example, a precious daughter of God, full of purity and innocence” he meant it as a lovely compliment in the following context:

“It was Jesus Himself who, while holding before us the example of the purity and innocence of children, declared, “Whoso shall offend one of these little ones … , it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matthew 18:6). In fact, the Lord made it clear that unless we develop in our own lives that purity, that lack of guile, that innocence of evil, we cannot enter into His presence.” – Gordon B. Hinckley

“To be guileless is to have a childlike innocence, to be slow to take offense and quick to forgive.” – Robert D. Hales

Ten years ago an LDS high school student wept as he told me that he wished he could go back to being innocent, instead of having constant cravings for sex, alcohol, and illegal drugs.

I love teaching my innocent primary class of ten and eleven-year-old girls. They are so humble and eager to learn! INNOCENCE is one of my favorite words…
Karen
August 25th, 2009 @ 12:54 pm

Whoa. I had no idea there were books like this that weren’t actual jokes. Funny and disturbing. If you “catch” some guy by acting inferior, then he’s going to treat you like you’re inferior all your life. Boo!
However, you wouldn’t want said catch to think that you never need any help. Then you could end up with someone who’s unsympathetic to your needs. We’re all needy sometimes, right?
I’m floored that people actually advise girls to not act like themselves in a dating scenario. I thought the games just stemmed from adolescent insecurity. Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised, but I am.
ErinAnn
August 25th, 2009 @ 12:55 pm

There are already some fantastic comments about combinining femininity with intelligence and personality. I am very outspoken and frequently go days without makeup. I like to turn it on, though. I don’t know any man who doesn’t appreciate a good flirt –from the woman he already adores. My husband LOVES it when I get dolled up, give him flirty looks and let him “help” me (doors, sitting, etc.). It’s the allure of closeness — that is why flirting is so tantalizing.

As for the truly dumbed-down girls who are “Fascinating”, I think that guys go for them because dumb girls are easy to make a move on. 8P
Angela
August 25th, 2009 @ 1:24 pm

Kathryn, I agree that the intention of the use of “innocence” was definitely positive–just like you described it. Being innocent of evil is a very important attribute. I totally understand what he was trying to say.

But as a word person myself, I still think it’s a problematic term because, outside of scriptural usage, it’s often used to describe women more than men (how many men in a leadership position would ever be described as “innocent”?) and because it’s so often coupled with “childlike.” A man might be described as “pure of heart” or some such term, but there’s a certain lack of experience and wisdom that comes attached to the word innocent. It just does.

I suppose what made me uncomfortable was describing a grown woman as “full of innocence,” especially since so many women have experienced trial and even sin in their lives, and innocence connotes a person who has never experienced such things. Again, I’m getting down to the nuances of vocabulary, but I would call someone who’d repented “clean” or “pure” . . . but I don’t know about “innocent.” Maybe it’s just me. But words like “innocent” not only hold women up to a standard that is nigh unto impossible to achieve, but they simultaneously undercut a woman’s claim on authority or wisdom.

I am quite confident that when the word “innocent” was used in conference it wasn’t intended to mean anything other than pure of heart and uninterested in sin. But circling back around to the topic of this post, how many women or girls interpret the meaning of the word “innocent” more along the lines of childlike (e.g. helpless, wide-eyed, in need of supervision, etc.)? It goes hand-in-hand with the portrayal of women in general as angel mothers or without desire for sin that we still sometimes see in the church, and that portrayal, in my opinion, can be problematic. Especially when young men looking for young women to marry have this idealized woman in mind.
Naomi
August 25th, 2009 @ 1:37 pm

As a teenager, I was so repulsed by what I viewed as the stereotypical woman (or even LDS woman) that I shunned all things “feminine” and opted for the ways of the tomboy, especially perceiving femininity as weak. Needless to say, I did not date much in high school.

I think that in the process of learning who we are as individual women, we often adopt personas of the women we see around us. For me, I knew what I did not like, so I adopted the opposite. However, as I have learned more about myself and who I am as a women, I have adapted how I portray myself to others. I like to think that my portrayal is much more true to myself than it was in the past. Thus, my habits in dating are also more true (I hope!).

Unfortunately, I think that many young women never really seek to find out who they are as individuals and simply adopt what they see around them and believe this to be how they are supposed to be and act and look. Luckily, I think there are a lot of options to being feminine and a woman, which makes it even more important that young women are able to see and interact with women who represent the spectrum.
Sue
August 25th, 2009 @ 2:20 pm

In high school, I think the strength of my personality/intelligence was intimidating to guys. By college, they liked it.

My mother’s main advice had to do with playing a little bit hard to get…letting the guy have to work a little and not be overly sure of your interest in him, rather than broadcasting right off the bat (by word and by action) how much you liked him. Her premise was that it was easy to scare a guy off in the early stages of a relationship by coming on too strong.

I must admit that this advice seemed to work for me. And having three sons, I can tell you that there are at least three modern-day men who prefer to do the chasing rather than become the chased.

(Old-fashioned, I know, but true for my family!)

=)

PS. My sons do like strong women, though, and intelligent ones.
Kathryn P.
August 25th, 2009 @ 2:32 pm

Angela, I know from personal experience that the atonement absolutely has the power to restore innocence. The word “innocence” carries absolutely no baggage for me. It is such a rare commodity in this world where the media destroys innocence (often with our permission and cooperation). In my own life, innocence has been a beautiful gift of grace… It is also a source of power and protection. In any discussion of femininity, my comments are certainly appropriate because innocence is a sacred and valuable trait in women and men.

In the context of being naive, you are absolutely right. If you view the dating world as being full of predators, it is very dangerous to be naive…
Ian Cook
August 25th, 2009 @ 2:51 pm

I must admit that I’ve always been attracted to strong women, but they have never been attracted to me…
Angela
August 25th, 2009 @ 3:09 pm

Kathryn, I didn’t mean to offend. I believe–I know–that when a person repents that the sin is completely taken from them, and that they are pure before God. And I also believe that your interpretation of the word is totally valid. However, the word carries with it, for me, a connotation of not having experience. Although sadness and sin are an unfortunate element of our human condition, through them we also gain experience. Eve willingly gave up her innocence in the garden (and innocence is the term that’s often used when talking about Eve’s state in the garden) to gain experience. So I suppose that’s the distinction I’m making. I didn’t mean to in any way imply that a person who repents isn’t 100% forgiven.

But I don’t want to take over the thread with this semantic discussion. I’m sorry if there’s been any misunderstanding.
Michelle.my.belle
August 25th, 2009 @ 3:17 pm

I agree with Kathryn P. in the definition of innocence, and probably the spirit it was meant to be taken in the conference session. However, I totally agree with Angela in that such words are used much more frequently to describe women than they are men. It’s kind of like how “nurturing” and “virtuous” are frequently listed as the highest traits a woman can attain to, but very rarely, if ever, are men described using the same words. I don’t think that’s fair, because obviously, both men and women should want to be described as compassionate, nurturing, virtuous, innocent beings. However, over and over again, especially (I feel) in LDS culture, women are told that without their virtue, they are nothing, while men don’t really (I don’t think) get the same emphasis. I personally feel that creates a lot of problems in our society. It’s kind of like how motherhood is stressed obsessively in young women’s and Relief Society, but rarely in young men’s meetings. Obviously, parenthood is something we all should be talking about, just like innocence and purity, but I feel like it gets relegated to the young women. That is probably a skewed view of things, but I do perceive things that way and it does annoy me.

That’s what I got out of Angela and Kathryn P.’s comments. I think innocence is something to strive for; I just wish we had the same standards and ways of talking about important issues for both men and women in the church.

Sorry if that was tangential!
Michelle.my.belle
August 25th, 2009 @ 3:18 pm

Oops, and Angela posted a marvelous reply while I was busy typing mine. Sorry.
Selwyn
August 25th, 2009 @ 3:19 pm

As someone who is theoretically facing the return to dating, yet who missed the entire LDS dating culture, I find myself flabbergasted and stubborn by turns.

Flabbergasted that there is still so much posing and bad advice (mothers/dates recommending Fascinating?).

Stubborn in that if I ever do accept a date, they will already know the kind of person I am, because that’s who they would have seen previously. I’ve worked bloody hard to be me, and I’m not surrendering any of that ground to the “Pick Fake Me” battle.
Selwyn
August 25th, 2009 @ 3:25 pm

Ooops – “bloody hard” – Australian terminology slipped in there.

No offence or swearing intended. In Aussie phraseology the use of “bloody” means “a particularly high or intense level”, so you can hear “bloody hard”, “bloody beautiful day” or “bloody hell” for example quite often.

Sorry! =)
Melissa M.
August 25th, 2009 @ 3:40 pm

Jumping back in here to say that I loved the bird analogy, Kathryn, and am enjoying the vigorous discussion going on.
Sue, I agree with your mom that it is wise early on in a relationship not to appear too eager—at least, that was what I observed when I was single. I’m wondering about Queen Scarlett’s (comment #26) question about what men feel they need to do in order to court/win women—are women the only ones giving and getting dating advice? Any of you men care to enlighten us?
Also, Michelle.my.belle, I’ve wondered myself about the emphasis on marriage/motherhood in teaching young women while young men don’t get the same focus. I’m guessing we could do a whole blog post on this topic….
And Selwyn, as one who grew up in Australia, I enjoyed your “bloody” remark.
Giggles
August 25th, 2009 @ 4:59 pm

Yup. They’re still handing out the same advice.

But if I’d acted dumb or helpless or any of those other ways we are “supposed” to act, I would not have been myself. And I’d hate to have to continue such an act for the rest of my life just because my husband thought I was one thing when I was really something else.

I haven’t read “The Rules,” but I did flip through it one bored afternoon in a bookstore. I didn’t learn anything valuable there.
Tiffany W.
August 25th, 2009 @ 6:43 pm

To Michelle.my.belle, I disagree when you said that motherhood is not stressed in YM meetings. My husband has served extensively in YM presidencies over the years. Those YM are taught quite a bit about motherhood, fatherhood and the importance of honoring women. We may perceive that the YM are not hearing those kinds of messages. But I think the opposite is quite true. Part of the importance of holding the priesthood is actually blessing one’s family and Young Men hear it a lot.

And there are a lot of lessons about personal purity to young men as well. It is harped on quite a bit about pornography and other sexual sins, so it just doesn’t seem fair to say that YM never hear it. If one reads the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet, the entire thing is directed to the youth as a whole. There aren’t separate sections about chastity for girls and boys. Negative aspects of our culture may have a skewed perception about the responsibilities of men and women regarding chastity, motherhood, fatherhood and paternity. But I don’t see that reflected in the official Church literature directed at our youth.
Michelle.my.belle
August 25th, 2009 @ 7:08 pm

Tiffany, I definitely agree with what you say. I think the church tries really hard to make sure chastity is stressed for both boys and girls, especially in both the YM and YW classes and manuals. The FSOY pamphlet especially makes guidelines for both boys and girls clear, and the leaders I’ve had have done a good job of stressing that. However, I feel like in our culture as a whole, virtue is something that is talked about directly to girls. The church seems to me to operate under the assumption that men need to be told what not to do: stop looking at porn, don’t make out, etc. But girls (based on my limited experience) are told that virtue is your most priceless possession, motherhood is your ultimate goal, don’t do anything that could jeopardize that. I agree with my leaders telling me that; however, I don’t feel like it’s talked about in the same way with young men. I’ve been told multiple times that it’s my responsibility as a girl to keep the boy off me, because those poor boys, they just can’t control themselves. I’ve also been told not to dress like “walking pornography,” for the sake of the boys who see me–which is true, but it implies, again, that boys aren’t virtuous by nature and “just can’t help themselves” if they see me wearing a tight shirt. Also, I feel like fatherhood and the duties of the priesthood are talked about in YM, but based on what I’ve heard, the emphasis is more on honoring women than on understanding women and on seeking to be good fathers. If you ask a boy what he wants to be when he grows up, only rarely will he say “a good father,” which differs incredibly from what most girls say when asked the same question. I feel like a woman’s place is in the home, and so is a mans; our first responsibility is to our families, and I don’t feel like that’s given equal emphasis to both men and women in the church. I feel like creating a happy home is relegated mostly to the women, and that’s not fair.

I think this is a cultural problem, not a doctrinal one, and I feel like if we did a better job teaching gospel principles, this wouldn’t be an issue. Also, I think it’s an American cultural problem, not just an LDS cultural problem.

Sorry if I sound militant…I don’t mean to!
Nancy
August 25th, 2009 @ 8:59 pm

I am really enjoying this topic. I was a devout follower of this book in my teen years. Luckily I came to my senses before I got married. But, darn it, if it doesn’t have some things in it that work! While I was able to be myself with my husband while we dated, I did employ one of the book’s methods to get him to propose while we were at BYU. One Friday night I went to my sister’s to babysit my niece. I told my roommates if he called, to tell him I was “out”. It hadn’t occured to him that other guys might want to date me. He proposed a few days later and we’ve been happily married for 30 years.
Nancy
August 25th, 2009 @ 9:08 pm

One more thing. There was a fascinating boy-type book out in the 70’s. When Aubrey Andelin saw what a success his wife’s book was, he wrote his own (which was suspiciously similar in layout to hers) and titled it “Man of Steel and Velvet”. It, too, is still in print at Amazon.
Mel
August 25th, 2009 @ 9:26 pm

I have been dating for over 20 years and the advice I have received hasn’t changed in the whole time I have been dating. Be yourself, keep your standards high, etc. Although the advice hasn’t changed, the dating pool has.
Instead of dating men that have never been married, I am now dating divorced men with children. Does anyone have any advice for dating divorcees?
Michaela Stephens
August 25th, 2009 @ 9:45 pm

Some thoughts.

There’s been some discussion on the connotations of “innocent”. I think that it is possible for people to regain their innocence through the Atonement of Christ, such that their previous experiences fade substantially from their thoughts and they only remember enough to take precautions. Innocence can involve being as wise as serpents, yet harmless as doves. In this day and age it requires wisdom and experience to hold onto/regain innocence.

The dating advice I got from my parents consisted of admonitions to be fun to be around, and develop personality. I developed my own brand of flirting–lots of playfulness, friendliness, occasional expressions of attraction and admiration, enthusiastic honest gratitude.

Once I tried to be a “mysterious woman” for a while and I think it lasted 5 minutes. Just wasn’t me. I don’t think I have a single mysterious bone in my body.

I had boyfriends in high school, and I had some dates in college, but of course it wasn’t as much as I hoped for. I sometimes felt that I was intimidating the boys with brains, but I wasn’t willing to act stupid to get more dates. Tons more fun being smart.
Melissa M.
August 25th, 2009 @ 9:45 pm

Ah, Nancy, I forgot about “Man of Steel and Velvet,” but now that you mention it, I vaguely remember such a book (I think my mom bought it for my dad). It would be fun to read that book now! Your story of being “out” when your then boyfriend called made me smile—it is true that men seem more interested when women are a bit elusive and/or are being pursued by other men.
Amy
August 26th, 2009 @ 1:15 am

Thanks for the walk down memory lane, What a great laugh. I too, was a disciple of FG and FW. In junior high I took a scientific approach to her claims. One day I would be the FG as outlined in the book. I would study the night before and practice all day on every boy I saw. THe next day I would be my normal self. The junior high boy was taken in by the tactics every time. It made me lose respect for men generally and eventually I gave it up.

Now I hear the FG dialogue anytime I watch or read Shakespeare’s “Comedy of Errors”. Shakespeare knew to mock such ridiculousness even back then. And don’t we all mock Miss Bingly in P&P when she spouts off what it take to be a really “accomplished woman”. Who wants to be like Miss Bingely? No thank you.
Uncle Wayne
August 26th, 2009 @ 5:55 am

I am the beau that Nancy spoke of. When I was told that she was “out”, I came to the realization that I loved her and was afraid of losing her. I’m very glad she used this fascinating girl trick. I was definitely attracted to her strength (and she’s a hottie too).

But, Melissa, what attracted Scott to you? You were always a perfect lady, but I could never characterize you as weak or silly. You were (and are) an intelligent and assertive woman.
Kathryn P.
August 26th, 2009 @ 8:01 am

Thanks Michaela, for your thoughts on innocence and the atonement. You inspired me to do a scripture search this morning and my favorite find was Matthew 11:25, where Christ says “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto BABES.” The footnote provides an alternative Greek translation for babes as INNOCENT PEOPLE. How cool is that?
I also liked your emphasis on fun. I just spent five weeks in Europe with my daughter and son-in-law. I’m very glad my daughter married someone with a sense of humor. There are times, especially when you’re on a long train trip in a hot stuffy compartment, where you just need to find the humor in the situation. Life is often a long train trip in a hot stuffy compartment…
And Angela, I appreciated the opportunity to ponder something I value. All is well…
Melissa M.
August 26th, 2009 @ 8:40 am

Uncle Wayne (hello!), your comment made me laugh. I just realized who Nancy (#54 & #55) is (yes, I’m a bit slow). I now remember that I was one of the roommates who told you she was out when you called. It was an excellent strategy. And thank you for the compliment. As for what attracted Scott to me, I think I will go ask him…..
KLC
August 26th, 2009 @ 9:31 am

Even though I’m a man I can relate to many of the comments made here.

I asked out dozens of girls in HS and most said no, they were too intimidated by me to say yes.

I asked out many women in college, many said no, they were too intimidated to say yes.

I asked out several women after graduation, several said no, they were too intimidated to say yes…
Natalie
August 26th, 2009 @ 11:44 am

Well, I’m trying to enact a bit of this feminine mystique in my married life. I think a large extent of the bickering that goes on around my would be relieved if I could just learn to adopt a softer tone, maybe bat a few eyelashes, and give my husband the impression that he has final authority over everything.

Does anybody listen to Dr. Laura? Does anybody else loathe her but have to admit she usually has a point?

When I was in college and high school and dating I was guns a’blazing opinionated and couldn’t care less who thought what. Somehow I managed to marry a man who prefers his wife to be sweet and nice and polite and girlish, I have no idea how that happened. (I guess he only SAYS that’s what he wants?)

So, the heck if I know! I guess there’s obviously something to this book, as outdated and insulting as it sounds, and I guess it’s right there in the Proclamation. Women are to nuture, men are to provide, and I guess to nurture a man we have to fawn all over the sucker? Thanks for this topic!
ZD Eve
August 26th, 2009 @ 4:47 pm

I guess there’s obviously something to this book, as outdated and insulting as it sounds, and I guess it’s right there in the Proclamation. Women are to nuture, men are to provide, and I guess to nurture a man we have to fawn all over the sucker?

I tend to think the Proclamation is a big advance over the type of rhetoric found in the likes of FG and Dr. Laura. For one thing, there’s no mention of women nurturing men, let alone “fawning all over” them; the only mention of nurturing at is mothers of children.

…and give my husband the impression that he has final authority over everything.

This is exactly the kind of thing that makes FG/FW & co. so unwittingly and hilariously incompatible with the patriarchal order. The point is to make the man think he’s running everything? To the extent that we endorse patriarchy, isn’t he actually supposed to be running everything?
ZD Eve
August 26th, 2009 @ 4:56 pm

the first counselor in my home ward told me before I went to BYU that he thought women at BYU weren’t getting married as often as they used to, and he thinks it’s because they don’t bother to look good while they’re walking across campus.

I share kliem’s skepticism on this point. Personally, I found far more emphasis on appearance at BYU than at either of the other universities I’ve attended. I knew of girls at BYU who would get up and spend hours doing their hair and nails and makeup every single day.
Aimee
August 26th, 2009 @ 6:55 pm

Thanks for the compliment Nan (#30). My husband thinks I’m pretty, that is the only opinion that matters. I think there is a difference between “fawning” all over a man and respecting and building them up. As women, we love to hear that we are beautiful (come on, even the most feminist of us want to hear that) that we are lovely, caring, smart, charming etc. Why is it fawning for us to tell our husband/boyfriend that he is handsome, strong, intelligent, trustworthy, etc. This is a sign of respect, to treat the man as we wish to be treated in return. The whole reason I dated a lot both during high school and after is because I had a lot of friends that were guys. I was a good friend to these guys, paid attention when they were speaking, gave compliments (only sincerely) when appropriate, and smiled and was kind. I was speaking recently to an old friend from high school, he mentioned something about having a crush on me back in the day. I asked him why, he said, “Because you paid attention to me. You listened to me. You made me feel like I mattered.” I don’t think this is demeaning to women at all. It truly is in our nature to nurture. That means we nurture our husbands as well as our children. Why not? Why not tell your husband you appreciate him, that he is your personal hero (he works every day, he takes care of the family, he takes care of you, isn’t that a hero?) Why not treat your husband or boyfriend as well as you treat your girlfriends? I’m not saying that you need to buy them a pint of ice cream and listen to them cry on your shoulder – but if need be, why not? I’m saying that your husband/boyfriends need to be appreciated, needed, and loved – just like you.

I never read the book that started this discussion. I went to high school in the 90’s. I never read “The Rules” although I did hear about it and laughed. Why not be genuine, kind, attentive, and affectionate. This is the way I “caught” my husband. Oh, and one more thing, my husband had to “work” for me, hard. And he loved it! Fascinating, isn’t it?
Melissa M.
August 26th, 2009 @ 7:46 pm

I just want to pop in here and say, Natalie and ZDEve, that I think we sometimes misinterpret the Proclamation on the Family and the patriarchal order to mean that the husband is supposed to “run everything.” The way I interpret it, the husband and wife should work together as a team in the home, supporting each other in their roles and counseling with each other with mutual respect when making decisions. The husband, as the priesthood holder, presides in the home, but that certainly doesn’t mean he runs everything. Anyone else have an opinion on this?
Natalie
August 26th, 2009 @ 10:13 pm

I was being a little flippant when I said we needed to fawn over our suckers and the bit about the authority, and I think I was a bit misunderstood. What I intended to say was this: I truly believe that a marriage works best when a woman feels like a woman, like a soft, nurturing, caring being, and when a man feels like he is providing for and protecting. And I believe a woman has a responsibility to honor her husband’s Priesthood, and to support him as he honors his Priesthood. Further, I believe that as strong women (as we all are, especially here at Segullah), this balance can be difficult to strike just the right way. Often times I know I have to bite my tongue so that my husband can make the decisions that make him my provider and protector. If all we do is nag and whine until things get done, our men will feel emasculated. Sometimes I really, really want to whine and nag. Sometimes I think my fiery opinions are so worth being heard, it’s okay for me to step all over my husband and his feelings. And I think it’s hard, relationships between two strong-minded people are hard. And I think the point of books such as these is to make potential suitors feel that, for you, they WANT to work hard and treat you right. And I think there’s something to be said for behaving in such a manner that our husbands feel how important they are. I should have been more direct and less tongue-in-cheek, I’m sorry if I sent the wrong message.
Melissa M.
August 27th, 2009 @ 9:20 am

No worries, Natalie. As my daughter pointed out to me, one of the problems with online discussions is that it’s difficult to discern someone’s tone, so tongue-in-cheek comments can sometimes be misread.
I agree with you that it’s difficult to find that delicate balance between being a strong, capable woman and not being too overbearing with one’s husband. I wish I had this one figured out….
ReNae
August 27th, 2009 @ 5:02 pm

I’m 32 and been in the LDS dating world all my life. I don’t know the rules any more. The last couple years, as I’ve observed my “older” friends getting married, I’ve realized that what is most important is a respect and just genuine enjoyment with each other. I’ve been looking for that. I’ve tried dating in the church and out. I would, of course, prefer a member. This year has frustrated me on the quality of members out there: 1) a guy who talked about his ex-wife and how much her new husband is exactly like him. He also started stalking me. 2). A guy addicted to porn and drinking; 3) a guy obsessed with the fact that he didn’t make enough even thought his salary was 250k; In the last 4 months, I thought I had finally met a great guy. He seemed to be a great priesthood holder and honor women. I just ended the relationship. The reason? He was in love and having an affair with the married YW leader in his ward (she also has a young child). The whole time we were dating.

I have phenomenal GIRL friends and really think they all deserve to meet great guys – for forever relationships. I’ve just decided that it’s hard to find the guy who really really is wanting and trying to live right. That’s what is most important to me now. (And Honesty).
Melissa M.
August 28th, 2009 @ 11:26 am

ReNae, can I just say that I sympathize with you? After reading your comment and Sheryl Garner’s post last Sunday (“Well, I really want to be married”) I am wondering if there are any righteous, kind, hard-working single LDS men out there (your story about the guy you just broke up with was especially disturbing—an affair with the YW president? Seriously?). But I know they are out there somewhere. And you sound like you have your act together. Your goal of finding a man who respects you and who you enjoy being with is a worthy one, and I hope you find someone who is worthy of you.
Sunday in Outer Blogness: follow-up discussion edition! | Main Street Plaza
August 30th, 2009 @ 7:08 am

[...] that she also wrote a book called The Fascinating Girl, and the ladies of Blog Segullah have shared their fascinating real-life experiences with it. And who could forget Andrew’s favorite scripture from Alma 32? Brailsmt has shared [...]
Sweet Em
August 30th, 2009 @ 8:35 pm

When I was a freshman in college I found “The Fascinating Girl” in my parents bookshelf (how I’d missed it until then I have no idea) and was in stitches at the suggestions. I recommend reading it purely for entertainment value – it is ridiculous! I was reading some passages out loud and laughing at the suggestion that you shouldn’t be better at math or science then boys (not one you like – any). My dad, who always thought I was excellent and was proud of anything I did, said “Emily, that is pretty good advice.” Shocked, I turned and replied “Dad, you would be paying a LOT more for my college education if I hadn’t been smarter than a lot of boys in highschool.”
Marge Bjork
September 5th, 2009 @ 3:02 pm

I’m 22 and at BYU. I’ve never felt concerned about being who I am or why I’m not attracting millions boys. I have dates sometimes and sometimes I don’t. I’m happy with the way things are, no matter what anyone else might tell me because I’m doing what I know I need to do.

The advice I’ve always felt I get from actual church doctrine and general authorities has always seemed to be, “Be the type of person you would like to marry.” And my parents advice follows along, they told me to do what I want to do and what I thought was right and I’d find someone who felt the same way.

What I find interesting, though, is that boys classify me as one of the fascinating intelligent girls they can have a conversation with, but they tell me about how it’s great that I’m different and more special than other girls and they tell me stories about stupid things that other girls have said or done. I always think, wait, what if I WERE to do something “stupid”? What if you someday found out that I’m probably not that different?

And then I think, Oh well, I won’t worry. I’ve just got to be me.
Eliza
September 9th, 2009 @ 10:14 am

Thank you for this post. I have to say that I was just dumped because I wasn’t “fascinating” enough. It went a little like this:

Boy: So I don’t think this is going to work out long term. What do you think?
Me: Well, if you want to break up, then there isn’t much I can do about it. I want to be with someone that wants to be with me.
Boy: Okay, well it’s just that I don’t think we’re each others “type.”
Me: I don’t think I have a type, if you name a kind of guy, I’ve dated it.
Boy: Well, I do and you’re too much of a leader and not super sweet.
Me: What do you mean I’m not sweet?
Boy: No, you’re sweet. Just not super sweet. They type of girl I want is dripping with sweetness and you’re not.
Me: You mean the type of girl that delivers cookies to boys every week?
Boy: Yeah, that kind.
Me: And being a leader is a bad thing?
Boy: For me, yes. You’re too confrontational.
Me: So you want a girl that’s more submissive?
Boy: Yes.
Me: I’m not confrontational, but I’ll stand up for myself and I don’t let people walk all over me.
Boy: Exactly, that’s not what I want.
Me: So you want a girl with out a back bone?
Boy: Yes.

At this time my roommate comes out and it goes like this:

Roommate: Oh sorry, I’m just going to Walmart, do you want to come?
Boy: (whispers in my ear) Tell her we’re making out.
Me: Yes, I would like to go with you but we’re in the middle of breaking up right now. Would you mind giving me 5 minutes?
Roommate: (A little confused) Yeah, I’ll just wait in the car.
Boy: Why did you say that?
Me: Because we are breaking up and I told her earlier that I saw this coming.
Boy: How did you know?
Me: Well, you’re 26 and you told me you had never had a relationship longer than a month. We’ve been dating just over a month now so I figured it was coming plus you’ve been acting different this past week.

I realized with in the past week that the only time he would complement me was if it was related to the way I looked, how my hair was done, my eyes, lips, height, etc. And he also didn’t remember much of the conversations we had had. He’d ask me the same things over and over. So if he wasn’t going to end it, I was.

Boy: I haven’t been acting different. I can’t believe you knew this was coming!
Me: This isn’t my first rodeo. Is there anything else you want to discuss? My roommate’s waiting for me.
Boy: Uh…no, I think that’s it. I hope we can still talk.
Me: Yeah, sure.
Boy: Really?!?
Me: I’m not the one with the problem.

I’ve been going back and forth and I can’t decide if I’m more upset that this boy really wants a girl like this or that girls like this exist and strive to be this type of girl.
Sage
September 9th, 2009 @ 10:38 am

Eliza, I applaud your honesty and hope you find an honest guy soon. And I think both situations are sad: a boy that is so shallow and a girl that fulfills his desires.

Get real!
Melissa M.
September 9th, 2009 @ 12:21 pm

Eliza, your description of your conversation made me laugh. I hope you find a guy who isn’t intimidated by you and that your ex-boyfriend finds a spineless girl. I imagine that both of these people are out there somewhere.
Lili
September 19th, 2009 @ 1:10 pm

Eliza’s story is awesome. I like to think/hope that I’ve gotten much better at this kind of conversation–especially when I compare recent conversations with prospects compared to ten years ago… I’ve come a long way. I think a lot of the difference is in better knowing who I am and what I want!
I’m turning 31 next month and I’m single… In other words I’ve got plenty of dating stories, opinions and observations (at least on who not to marry, haha)… but mostly I just wanted to say that I finally decided that while the fact that I’m 1) “old,” 2) a returned missionary, 3) a college grad, 4) graduate school grad and 5)still young-looking and beautiful may make me intimidating to some men, the fact is that I want to find my equal. Someone who I don’t intimidate. (Nor do I want someone who intimidates me). So as long as _don’t_ bend to be someone I’m not, I’m going to end up with a great match!
The end.
Jessi
December 4th, 2009 @ 9:42 pm

Yes I agree, I am a college student and am planning to be a missionary. I definitely don’t think you need to dumb yourself down, just find someone equal. I mean think about where most women today go looking for a man. the bar? I found mine at Bible college and he is amazing and smart, and he likes that im smart but he is smart in different ways and i like to hear about the things he is good at cuz i like my smart man I mean who doesnt like it when they get recognized for how smart they are? especially by someone they really like and admire. i dont want someone who drinks and partys,sure maybe that would be fun for a while but it wont last, easy come, easy go.If a guy is willing to wait you know he is worth it. And its easy to see a lot of girls these days don’t have much dignity if any. i know a lot of guys in high school had a lot more respect for me cuz i didn’t flaunt everything i had, cuz really that looks desperate. Whats the difference btwn showing off your body to get a guy and dumbing yourself down?? and really if a guy prefers a girl who is going to be smarter n hard working so she can be the bread winner n he can stay home n play his video games. Have fun with that one, cuz really you deserve better.