Recap: Dating Boot Camp & The Man Panel: Part 1
What went down at Matt Titus and Tamsen Fadal's first 2 dating boot camps.
Matt and Tamsen discuss what looks attract guys (an ample front porch, a high, round back porch and long tresses) and the clothing (open tops, high heels and… open tops) to accentuate those things. They polled the man panel (now comprised of Max Gross, Ky Henderson, Editor of Cosmo's Ask Him Anything, Adam Rich, Ted Scofield and this guy) about certain items of clothing. We dug the little black dress (LBD), did not care for flats, were agnostic about both denim and leather jackets (I like both, especially with designs on them, have fun!) and generally thought apple-bottom jeans were a solid bet (though being tight enough to see anatomy was frowned upon). Because of the subject matter, Lord & Taylor deposited the lot of us in their Little Black Dress department after the chat. Some coincidence.
The highlight question of the operation was how to get a man interested in you specifically if he's banging three other chicks on the side (not literally on the side). Matt thought by not sleeping with him. After we all chuckled at that one, no one had a satisfactory answer. In hindsight, a guy successfully juggling three or four broads probably thinks he has it made, but if you're incredibly interesting, wealthy and/ or talented he could become yours, I suppose provded you're also really attractive. Knowing some tricks that would make a Bangkok go-go-girl blush wouldn't hurt either.
Oh, along the way Matt And Tamsen nailed us with this fact: 60% of guys would cheat if they didn't think they'd be caught. Yeesh is right. My other new BF (we'll see if we can add the other "F"), Simone Grant (Sex-Lies-Dating.com), thinks this sounds specious. Check out what her readers have to say.
Next boot camp recap, how to get the guy and how to act on a date. Plus, check out Matt and Tamsen's book Why Hasn’t He Called?, the book from which much of dating boot camp is based.
Discussion
I'm still pondering the 90-day rule. I thought Simone Grant's reaction was funny but a little cold (basically, no way, I'm not going to waste 90 days on a guy before I know if he can bonk properly). More like test-driving a car than having a relationship with another human being.
On the other hand, is a set timeline really necessary? Is this the only way to avoid having sex with someone who doesn't care about you and then feeling hurt? Or is it that if you don't see someone that often, it takes 90 days to get to know them?
And are there any other rules that go with it? Does he have to be in love with you or going out with you before you have sex? Just having a timelimit doesn't seem like enough for me.
So would anyone out there really follow this rule?
Yes, it's exactly like test driving a car. A car is a big purchase/investment and a pretty big decision (for most people). I certainly wouldn't buy or lease one without taking it for a test drive. Likewise, I'm not going to invest deeply in a relationship unless I've given the guy a thorough test drive.
Having been in the heartbreaking situation of being in a relationship with a man I cared deeply for, but with whom I was not sexually compatible, I know that caring about a person does not automatically make your sex life work. For me, three months is too much time to invest in a relationship without knowing that the sex is going to be good. I want to tick that box off earlier, rather than later.
