I’m a divorced man, back on the dating scene for a couple of years, and confused about the current “rules of engagement,” or at least the way some women react these days.
I met a very attractive and interesting divorced woman, who’d taken on the role of social “matchmaker” by throwing large parties at her condo for all the unattached people she could mix together.
I asked my hostess for a date and we had good times together, twice. That ended recently, when she said she was busy on a particular evening.
Then, late on that day, she called to say that her plans were cancelled, and she was now free.
But I’d had a hard day so said I was too tired to get together. We agreed to meet for drinks another evening.
But, after I’d waited for her for a while, she sent a text saying that she wasn’t coming. She said it was “payback” for my last cancellation.
Did I break a dating rule by admitting I was too tired? We’re both not kids – I’m 68, she’s 56.
No “rules” were broken, it was just reality made evident.
She wants to play the “femme fatale” role, with no interest in people who get “too tired” to see her.
She demonstrated that she can be too busy for you, but you better not give up your chance to see her.
The dating world no longer depends on a small circle of people you know or are recommended to you.
It’s limitless, whether you go online, tap into hostess parties, or organized singles’ groups.
The basic dating rule, however, is timeless: Be true to yourself.
You’re 68, and know your own energy. You cannot, and shouldn’t try, to jump when someone else says “Now or never.”
She may be a great acquaintance to have as you navigate your way through this new social path. But don’t expect her to hold your hand along the way.
My wife of two years is Canadian and Catholic; I’m also Canadian-born but my background’s Indian and Hindu.
My ex-wife takes our kids to the Hindu Temple, and sometimes I take them. My new wife takes her son to Church, and sometimes I accompany them. My kids have asked to go to Church occasionally with their new “brother” and he’s asked to go to the Temple.
It’s all fine with us, but my ex is adamant that our kids can’t go to Church, ever. I’ve said it’s about learning to understand and appreciate other religions, but she won’t listen.
Your ex is feeling threatened. So let the topic rest awhile.
Neither of you is trying to convert the other’s children. This is about growing their knowledge and understanding of each other within your expanded family.
But your ex doesn’t feel a need to expand her knowledge of your new wife and stepson so she’s resistant (especially if she still holds bitter feelings about your divorce).
The children will become aware of the different religious and cultural practices without going to Church or the Temple. You and your wife will be sharing and explaining some of these at home.
When they’re older and more independent, your kids may insist on their right to go to visit a Church with their stepmother.
But it’s best to support her wishes on this for as long as possible, to try to minimize any joint custody tensions or other restrictive reactions from her.
My younger sister’s husband makes a lot more money than mine, though we’re very comfortable. She’s always trying to impress me with their wealth.
I’m happy for her, and not competing with her.
I have two children, she has four, and emphasizes how much busier she is. She uses it as an excuse why we can’t get together except at Christmas.
When I try to help her or make suggestions, she gets very angry. What am I doing wrong?
You were born first, and can’t change that.
Perhaps your parents favoured you, or you were better at things you both tried. That history may be the “problem.”
Today, your trying to “help” her or making suggestions might just remind her that you may think you’re superior. That riles her.
Back off without backing out. Show interest in what she’s doing, and in her children. Listen with empathy.
She may let up her guarded approach in time.
Tip of the day:
Dating at any age has challenges, requiring you to stay true to your own principles.