Dr. Phil & Love Advice
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 07-24-2006 - 1:12pm |
Hello folks, I’m in a quandary. Usually I adore Dr. Phil, but recently I was reading his “Love Smart” book and came across something that confuses me quite a bit. He says that you should never invest more in a relationship than you can afford to lose. In theory, this sounds great, but is this actually possible? I mean, can you keep someone at arm’s length and have a real relationship? This seems counterintuitive to me. Isn’t the goal to end up with someone that you can’t imagine living without? I think this is similar to not "needing" a relationship...because if you "need" one, it'll almost always end badly. My issue with this is that if I am perfectly comfortable not being in a relationship, why would I value one? If I'm not taking things seriously, how can I expect to build a substantial relationship?
Also, he asserts that if you’re dating with the intention of marrying, you’re “playing the game with sweaty palms”, which translates into an inability to become friendly with someone before deciding whether or not you are interested in pursuing a relationship. Again, this sounds great. Yes, it really is sound advice to approach potential partners as friends first. If they wouldn’t make a good friend, how could they be a suitable partner? But when you’re on a date, isn’t there a built-in expectation that you’re looking to be “more than friends”? Otherwise, why go out of your way to meet people? Do you do that to meet new friends?
Anyway, I’m interested in what other people think about these points :-)

Good topic! I also read the book and here are my thoughts on the points you brought across:
I think Kerry's insights were excellent. I would only add a couple of things...
First, I am not a big Dr. Phil fan. I haven't read his book but I have watched his TV show several times. I think a lot of his advice is trite, pushy and too simplistic. But in this case, I agree with the ESSENCE of his messages about dating.
I would like to attempt an answer to your question: "But when you’re on a date, isn’t there a built-in expectation that you’re looking to be “more than friends”?
Actually, I do believe that most people over a certain age go into a date with the HOPE that the date will blossom into something *more*. Yes, a date is supposed to be fun and light in the beginning, but it's also about romance. We don't seek ROMANCE with our buddies... not usually, anyway.
I think what Dr. Phil meant is that there's a difference between being open to the possibility of romance, and being hellbent and determined that the guy you're dating is going to be your future husband. That's putting way too much pressure on yourself and on your new beau. Unfortunately, a lot of women do this without realizing it. They start dating someone and if the date went well, they almost instantly start thinking marriage. What's worse, after only one, two or three dates, many a woman begins to feel ENTITLED to the man's time, which causes her to start freaking out when he doesn't call every day, etc.
Men are not exempt from blame in this scenario, of course. Because in the heat and excitement of early infatuation, many men also make noises about "the future," only to realize they spoke too soon. But I think it's important to remember that men are HOPEFUL on dates, too. Most of them really would like to meet someone they could fall for.
But "happily ever after" just doesn't happen that soon or all that often. 99 percent of dates go NO WHERE. And that's OK! I think the message is: date to get to know the other person... to find out if there's longterm compatibility... to enjoy some romance (if it happens), and be ACCEPTING if you later find out it isn't going to last forever.