By Kristine Keller

Downtown dating is like the root canal process—painful while you’re going through it but the end result leaves your sensory nerves feelin’ good. And sadly, there’s no quickie fix for that painful pearly white procedure. There is, on the other hand, a fast way to land suitors in the date-o-sphere, which is why a bevy of singletons have discovered the allure of speed dating. Like most first conversations, speed daters might ask “so, what do you value most in a relationship?” to which a secure person might respond “honesty and loyalty.” There are those who take a different approach in their answer: “I value a partner who calls and texts 20 times a day, Instagrams a picture of me and my dog in the morning, faxes me at night, and pins my face all over his Pinterest in the afternoon.” Reeling from that, the person sitting across might then snap fast and yell “NEXT!”

During a recent speed dating exercise, psychologists noted that a process known as attachment could explain interactions of this sort. Attachment theory maintains that a relationship with one’s caregiver early on in life largely determines one’s social and developmental upbringing. Those raised in reliably nurturing environments with caregivers who responded to their every need grow up “securely attached.” When these infants were hungry, they were fed; when they cried, they were shown consistent care and attention. As a byproduct, these infants grew into secure and trusting adults. The kind of adult you want sitting across from you during a lighting fire round of “How many times do you expect your boyfriend or girlfriend to call you in a day?”

Those raised under the roof of unpredictable caregivers who exhibited inconsistent care might become “anxious-ambivalent attached” adults. These children came from caregivers who were at times interested and warm, but then unavailable and distant. We have these unpredictable caregivers to blame for the stage-five clinger. Anxious-ambivalent adults are excessively needy, clingy, and constantly need validation and approval from others. They also demand constant communication with their honey for fear of abandonment—and aren’t afraid to be upfront about it during first rounds of speed dating.

Lastly, there’s the “avoidant attached” person, whose caregiver rarely responded to their distressed calls and ignored their needs entirely as infants. It’s the avoidant adult who eschews intimacy entirely due to failing to form an emotional bond with one’s caregiver early in life. It’s also the avoidant-attached person who is at risk for developing severe interpersonal problems, like lack of empathy, callous, unemotional responses and other psychopathic symptoms. A caregiver’s sensitive and responsive nature towards children serves as a model for empathy in a healthy reciprocal relationship. Without this model, children who didn’t form a secure attachment with their caregiver fail to develop the skills for a healthy functioning relationship. This person might be cold and aloof at a speed-dating jaunt having only shown up at the coercive prodding of pushy friends.

When it comes to these speed-dating soirees, NYC daters are quite savvy and intuitive when making judgment calls. Those deemed “securely” attached adults by psychologists were more favorably rated by potential suitors. Unsurprisingly, those categorized as insecurely attached were given poorer marks. The good news is that these styles of attachment can change depending on our interpersonal experiences in life. Just as a bad breakup might make a securely attached dater turn anxious-ambivalent, a positive experience could turn an avoidant-adult into a diehard romantic. And lucky for us—it’s easier to change an insecure style into one that’s secure than vice-versa. So daters of every attached-type, take heart—we’re never done evolving and changing. And eventually one of these quickie-dating episodes will blossom into a longer-term affair and if anything, that’s something everyone can feel security from.

Kristine received her master’s in psychology from NYU. She currently works at Vanity Fair. E-mail her at StreetShrinkNYC@gmail.com for questions.

Sean Lowe, star of ABC’s ‘The Bachelor,’ weighs in on everything from the ideal date to mistakes women make in their search for the perfect mate.

By Angela Barbuti

Sean Lowe will be alone this Valentine’s Day—but don’t feel bad for him just yet. The 29-year-old recently finished taping a season of ABC’s The Bachelor, where he had his pick of 26 women, all vying to win his heart. His quest for love is being aired every Monday night, with America watching as his personal life is made public. Lowe, a Texas native, was chosen for The Bachelor after competing in The Bachelorette last year, where he was the third from last contestant to be sent home. Immediately pegged as the “nice guy,” ABC rewarded Lowe for his sincerity—and six-pack abs—by selecting him as Season 13’s bachelor. He can’t tell us whether or not he found a soulmate, but definitely speaks from experience when he says, “When you meet the right person, you’ll know.”

Everyone calls you a nice guy. Do you think that’s a good assessment?

[Laughs] I think I am a nice guy. I had no idea that’s how I’d be perceived after doing The Bachelorette. Usually the adjectives that are used are ‘genuine’ and ‘sincere.’ I never really thought of myself in those terms. It’s cool that America does see that. I don’t go out of my way to be a nice guy. I’m the man that my parents brought me up to be. But I would rather be a nice guy than a jerk, I guess.

You are dating multiple women on national television. What do your family and friends think?

I think they’re really enjoying it. Of course, if anyone is allowed to make fun of me, it’s my family and friends—and they certainly do that. It seems like every Monday night they’re calling me, ragging about something I said or did. It’s all in good fun and they’re all proud of me, I know they are. I think I made them proud not only through my actions, but just the way I presented my family during this whole process.

You’ve been on some really lavish dates on the show. What is your ideal date?

Not the typical ‘Bachelor’ date. I don’t need the extravagance or the exotic settings, although that’s really nice and I’m glad I had the chance to do it. My ideal date is just something simple. I want to spend as much time with the woman as possible. Take her to a place that allows us to talk, someplace where we can really get to know each other.  That could be an intimate dinner at a romantic restaurant or dinner at my house that I prepare, or it could be just a walk through the park.

Did you expect all the drama that happens this season?

[Pauses] No, I did not. I was actually oblivious to a lot of it. [Laughs] You know, Tierra is certainly the name that’s been talked about most frequently lately and I had no idea that that was going on in the house. Outside of a few murmurs from girls who basically just said, “Well, we really don’t like Tierra.” And I would ask them, “Okay. Why? Give me some examples.” And they really couldn’t come up with any. So watching the show on Mondays has been eye-opening for me because I just didn’t know this stuff was going on.

Which moments were most memorable?

The first night was a really surreal moment. I’ll never forget Lindsay coming out in a wedding dress or Ashley, the Fifty Shades of Grey girl, who was just completely over-the-top and drunk.

What surprised you most about being “The Bachelor”?

You know, I was shocked it only took me a few weeks to really start developing relationships with multiple people. One of my greatest fears coming into this was that I really wouldn’t find a connection with anybody and it would be a waste of time. But after those first couple of weeks, I found myself really falling for AshLee and Des and Sarah. I was overwhelmed by how many great women were on the show.

Are you allowed to tell us what you’re doing on Valentine’s Day?

I can answer it. I’ll be in Dallas not doing much of anything, to be honest with you. If I have a Valentine, I wish that I could spend it with her. But obviously I can’t say if I do or don’t. I’m just going to be celebrating the day by myself.

Do people recognize you around Dallas?

Everyone is always so nice and that’s why I never turn down someone who comes up and asks for a picture. People normally say, “We were rooting for you and heartbroken when it didn’t work out with Emily. We think you’re such a nice guy and can’t wait to watch you this season.” It’s gotten really crazy and that’s one of the drawbacks from doing this whole thing. I would rather be able to go to the grocery store or out with my friends without being stopped. That’s not the case these days.

You have a degree in social science. Has that helped you on “The Bachelor”?

[Laughs] I would like to think that my social skills are above par.

What are your future plans?

It’s hard to say. I love my business and I’ll definitely be part of Factory Girl over the course of the next decade or so. It’s a business I own with two partners. We do custom furniture, handbags, all kinds of stuff. We’re basically targeting women; they’re our main demographic. That’s the exciting part of life for me. I don’t know where I’m gonna be in 10, 15 or 20 years and I like that. A year ago I would never have imagined that I’d be where I am today.  I guess I’ve learned not to map out my future, because as soon as you try to do it, God has other plans for you.

What advice would you give single girls looking to settle down?

I would say, don’t try too hard. I find that a lot of women overanalyze the smallest things that guys really are not paying attention to. Like, “how come he hasn’t texted me back? It’s been almost three hours now.” Meanwhile the guy’s probably out doing something and just lost track of time. I think as a rule, it’s better to just relax and be yourself.

Watch Sean on “The Bachelor” Monday nights at 8 p.m. on ABC. 

by Kristine Keller

These days, when a flame sputters and fades out, we’ve got an armful of friends ready to peel us off the floor with the margarita blender, limes and coconuts. You’ll do the proverbial dance around the blender while Jose Cuervo wafts through the air and spend the night yelling aspersions aimed at the opposite sex. Your army of comforting friends succors you with “you deserve better!” and “you do you tonight!” over the humming of the blender. You then delete said flame from your phone, take down the pictures of the two of you basking in La Esquina Park last summer and do your best to forget. But just when you think your heart can’t break into any more pieces, another memory seeps through and you grab your chest in disbelief that it’s happening again. Another perilous pang from the omnipotent organ that oxygenates us, protects us and makes us feel alive and in ruin at the same time.

For most of us, situations like this are fleeting. Most make a full recovery from those stumbles in the capricious dance of love and life, but for 5 percent of the population affected by a condition called limerence, heartbreak feels like an indefinite December night pierced by the strings of Joni Mitchell’s Blue album. Psychologists characterize this unique ailment as an involuntary and incessant state of compulsory and unrequited longing for another person. Usually both parties remain dejected for a period of time after a flame-out, but when one half of the couple moves on and the other remains in a state of constant longing and obsessive thoughts and feelings, limerence has the ability to take a serious toll on one’s already heavy heart.

During one’s initial descent into attraction, it’s healthy and quite fun to feel life’s natural euphoric high and the ascent of pleasure-activating hormones like dopamine and oxytocin. You’ll nod and smile while friends tell stories about their day, while the only thing you can think about is his mouth on yours or her bare back in your bed. You’ll shrug off the busy deadlines or running late to the subway only to find the doors shut in your face; these annoyances don’t matter when you’ve got someone waiting for you at the end of the day. Naturally, you want these honeymoon feelings to last forever, but for our productivity and sanity, we actually need these reward-seeking hormones to dissipate. And thankfully they do, after six to twenty-four months.

For those who suffer from limerence, however, these intense feelings never ebb. They say absence makes the heart grow fonder. But what these universal idioms surrounding love neglect to mention is what can happen when separation causes one’s heart to desire too much. Patients who suffer from limerence describe their thoughts and feelings as obsessive and compulsive; it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, then, that one of the only medications to treat those suffering from limerence, Lexapro, is the same one used to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder. Lexapro, a type of antidepressant, thaws the part of the brain that is responsible for the obsessive thoughts. Patients report difficulty concentrating, constant rehearsal and replay of shared interactions, and loss of control over one’s actions.

Although research on this condition is nascent, medication and cognitive behavioral therapy are providing promising results. Leading experts on limerence suggest that patients don’t ever forget the breakup entirely, but that if taken care of properly, symptoms can decrease after a few years. But, future empirical research and brain-imaging techniques are currently under way to yield a more comprehensive understanding of this evolving condition. What we do know is that a bad breakup or unrequited love can trigger the onset and that it can happen to anyone—limerent individuals can be found in all age groups, both genders and the full range of socioeconomic classes. So, if all it takes is a chant to “put the lime in the coconut” to get you over your heartbreak hump, then you’ve found your silver lining, and it’s looking more like a bubbling gold on the rocks.

Kristine received her master’s in psychology from NYU. She currently works at Vanity Fair. E-mail her at StreetshrinkNYC@gmail.com for questions.

Photo via Flickr/byronv2

Sometimes a lady just wants to enjoy a glass of wine, some candlelight, and a little ambient activity without the bother of making plans or, quite frankly, conversation.

Unfortunately, ever since Eve solo-drank her first Appletini and damned us all, visiting even the coziest bar alone and unbothered has become nearly impossible. Until now. So pull up a barstool, swirl your Syrah, and order that charcuterie board – you’re not going anywhere.

How to visit a bar alone and in peace:

1. Be a dude.
2. If Step 1 is within reach, you may stop reading and go directly to your bar of choice. If not, read on.
3. Stop showering. Give it a few days.
4. As for what to wear, where do I begin? You know best what looks worst on you. Wear that.
5. If you’re truly lost – or for some strange reason don’t own unflattering, man-repelling clothes – I’d be happy to lend you some.
6. When entering the bar, go straight to an open seat. Look for one next to a built-in barricade, like a column, or another loud woman.
7. Order two drinks.
8. This makes it look as though you may have company after all. Perhaps he or she is using the facilities. It’s been an hour but perhaps you guys just finished dinner at an Indian restaurant. Perhaps he or she simply suffers from IBS. Regardless, once IBS is out there, no one will be hitting on anything.
9. That second drink also makes it impossible for anyone to buy your next. Even if they do manage to get past your IBS-suffering boyfriend in the bathroom.
10. And if you’re worried about getting drunk and taking advantage of yourself, make the second drink a Shirley Temple.
11. Drain your face of all emotion. Pleasant indifference is your companion for the night.
12. Resist scowling at the guy who keeps trying to make eye contact from across the bar. Your scowl, his invitation.
13. If someone does approach, just start acting really fucking weird.
14. Take any usual filter and drop it in that cute little tea light. Watch it go up in flames and describe how you’re “drifting into smoke and ashes, like the memory of loves lost in labors unfound.”
15. In fact, mention love. A lot. Like, until he leaves.
16. Everyone will expect you to bring a book. They know the trick, and they’ll use it against you. Bring a whole stack of books instead.
17. Inevitably, someone will purse his lips, furrow his brow, and say, “That book any good?”
18. Eh, you’ll say. Don’t think you’d like it. “Try me,” he’ll say.
19. Well, it’s about a girl who goes to a bar to read her book.
20. He’ll smirk and tilt his head at your witty banter – how playful! – but you’ll continue.
21. No one will just let her fucking read, you’ll say. So she finally puts the book down and talks to the man. The two of them leave together. To his place. But then, before he can even slip his key into the lock, comes the climax: she stabs him. Dead.
22. “Bye,” he’ll say. Take care, you’ll say, as you motion for another glass of wine and turn the page.

The Protagonist interviewed several New Yorkers this week with the goal of better understanding the incredibly complex psychology behind the act of subway reading.

Anticipating primarily tales of the embarrassment surrounding reading something too “trashy” or juvenile, or, alternatively, something too pretentious, and how all this is impacted by the omnipresence of e-readers, or even how hard it is to focus on one’s book at all with all these coursing thoughts, I stumbled across a different, more prevalent phenomenon altogether.

While New Yorkers are overwhelmingly most embarrassed to be caught reading the “dorky” stuff, the fact is this: subway reading has gotten too damn sexual.

If it’s not the subway-reading-pickup-game — with book as mere conduit for something much more improper — it’s secret or not-so-secret pornographic reading, a whole universe of secret sex codes, presumptions about others’ sex lives and so on.

Kambri Crews, an author herself, who publicly reads whatever she wants (including Harry Potter) reserves judgment of what others read…for the most part.

“I always notice what others are reading but usually don’t think much of it,” says Crews. “Unless it’s some young kid with fake glasses reading Anna Karenina or something lofty and I think, ‘Yeah, right. Whatever,’ and sprain my eye muscles from rolling them so hard.”

Does anyone show an interest in what she’s reading? “Only men who are looking for action ever comment on what I’m reading,” says Crews.

According to comedian and prolific subway-reader Dan Nainan, “The thought of having to sit on the subway with nothing to do is unacceptable.”

Nainan doesn’t care what people think of his literary choices. “A friend of mine, Steve Chandler, wrote a fantastic book called 100 Ways to Motivate Yourself,” Nainan explains. “One of his tips asks, why should what someone else thinks affect how I feel?”

But then the plot thickens. “I will say that reading Fifty Shades of Grey on the subway has been quite interesting,” says Nainan. “Would you believe that I’ve had a few women start conversations with me about that book? One of these conversations even led to a date.”

Nainan offers an observation: “I see many women reading this book, all of them are reading it on e-readers – I think they are too embarrassed to actually read the physical book itself…some of them glance around furtively to make sure that nobody is seeing them read the book.”

“If a man were looking at pornography on the subway, or anywhere else in public, he would be excoriated,” he says. “Apparently, it’s okay for women to read pornography on the other hand.”

Another subway reader, Emily Glickman, echoes Nainan: “Recently I saw a woman openly reading Fifty Shades of Grey, the physical book, and thought that was a little off.”

Brooklynite Shelley Chapman, who says: “Electronics nowadays emit levels of radiation that can bother [her] after a while,” to explain her support of physical books, is not afraid to advertise her presumptions about others based on what they read.

“If I noticed someone reading a book titled My Baby Daddy Part 3, I’d wonder how in the heck they even managed to read Part 1 and 2,” says Chapman.

“Admittedly, there are a few books depending on the cover illustrations that I won’t as readily read on the train,” she says. “Such as my books on Tantra.”

With all the judgment, it’s no wonder some readers are a little self-conscious. Dustin Nelson remembers reading Nicholson Baker’s House of Holes on the train and feeling “a little weird about [it.]”

“I thought someone was going to see one of the chapter titles sitting next to me, since the chapter titles there are pretty dirty,” Nelson explains. “Maybe they’d think I was coming onto them with my book.”

Hunt Ethridge, on the other hand, isn’t afraid to confess his literary interests aren’t exactly pure: “I subscribe to the Erotica Center on my Kindle and on slow, cold days, I may read something spicy on my way home. That’s when it’s the best!” Others agree they use e-readers if they plan to read something a little personal, like a self-help book.

Hashim Locario, a dating coach and author, has even more aggressive intentions. Locario wrote a book for men called How to Have Sex with 2 Women a Day.

“When I first got the hard copies of the book printed I would read it on the train so people could see what I was reading,” says Locario. “Women would give me strange looks and men would always ask me where I got the book.”

“I actually sold a couple on the train that way,” he says.

Locario adds: “I actually used to pick up girls by approaching them and asking them about what they were reading.”

In fairness, some New Yorkers interviewed also had far more innocent intentions when they sparked up a conversation about books, or approached subway reading in general.

Christina DiRusso says she “love[s] giving out recommendations and always asks for ideas back.”

Bob Madison and his husband often read aloud to each other on the subway.

“This can sometimes raise eyebrows when it’s something like Tik-Tok of Oz,” he explains. “Just a couple of weeks ago we were reading Fer-der-lance, the first Nero Wolfe mystery on the train, and found a bit that was so smartly written and so funny that we were howling all the way to Chambers Street.”

Madison adds: “Then my husband was reading The Gods of Mars, an old adventure novel by Edgar Rice Burroughs, and he read a particularly over-the-top bit to me that I’m sure must’ve raised the eyebrows of anyone listening.”

While using books to pick up dates is far from a new phenomenon, The Protagonist is left wondering if the ubiquity of e-readers puts a damper on the process, or facilitates it further. One thing is for sure, e-readers make it more difficult to form an assumption based on what’s being read, though as some point out — at the very least they do make a statement about someone’s disposable income level.

Whatever the motive, it’s safe to say, when people idly read on the subway, they usually aren’t just idly reading. And the people casually not looking? Well, you know.

It’s the kind of thing that happens to all of us now and then.

Just the other day, I was having lunch with a somewhat imposing young film student to talk about the possibility of his doing a YouTube video to promote my novel. He was both handsome and British, which is a combination that tends to unnerve me. He was describing a particular kind of film montage technique and I was trying hard to follow him.

“You know what I mean,” he was saying, “It’s what ______ often did at the beginning of all his early films.” The student dropped the name of a director who, I could tell from the confident tone of the student’s voice, I was supposed to know. So I murmured “Uh-huh,” though I had no idea at all who this director was.

This kind of bluffing can be risky, even though in many instances failing to confess one’s ignorance will cause you no trouble—the reference is touched upon briefly, the conversation goes on to something else and no one is the wiser. However, in this case, we stayed on the subject of said director for some time. The result? I felt lost, with a growing panic inside even as I smiled and nodded. And of course it is much worse to confess after five minutes has passed. Every second you let the pretense go on, the more ridiculous you feel when you have to admit, “Actually, I don’t know what you are talking about.” I was a prisoner—a prisoner of my lie.

There are many reasons why pretending you know something you don’t is a bad idea. The two most important of these are: 1) You are no longer a full participant in the conversation, because you are, to a certain extent, faking it. The quality of the conversation is affected, especially as you are now spending some of your energy trying not to get caught. And 2) You may actually get caught, when your conversational partner suddenly asks you something specific about the subject at hand. (“Which is your favorite of his films?”) And getting caught pretending to know about a book, a director, a town in Italy, a trendy restaurant or a politician can be much more embarrassing than acknowledging your ignorance in the first place.

It’s better to come clean. For one thing, if you admit your ignorance, the other person gets the pleasure of enlightening you. Most people like to teach people things; it makes them feel slightly superior. You are also indicating to the other person that you are actually listening to every word he is saying, that you are committed to having a meaningful conversation, not one where you just skate through. You are willing to sacrifice your ego for the benefit of the exchange.

After all, whatever the reason that you are having this conversation—with the possible exception of a job interview—it will be more successful if you are connecting as honestly and as fully as possible. And you can’t really do that if you are only partly aware of what the other person is trying to say. If the other person is describing how a particular author made her feel when she was young and you only pretend to know the author in question, you are not going to be able to empathize as much as you should.

Some people in this situation will interject something like, “Wait—have I seen her/him/it in the news recently?” in the hope of getting enough additional information that it will either jog their memory or they won’t really need to know more to continue the conversation. Others will just change the subject as soon as they can.

But ultimately, covering up takes too much energy and confessing is the best way to become better informed. After your initial embarrassment, you will feel relieved at not having to pretend. The other person may even respect you more for admitting you don’t know what they are talking about.

At lunch with the film student, I finally steeled myself, looked right into his handsome face and said, “To tell you the truth, I actually don’t know that director. I don’t know why I said I did, actually.” (I tend to use the word “actually” a lot when I am with Brits.)
“Oh, he’s fairly obscure,” he responded with a reassuring smile. And then he went on to describe exactly the kind of opening montage he meant when he brought the director up.

I vowed right then and there to try never to fake it again. There is too much to learn and too little to lose.

Jeanne Martinet, aka Miss Mingle, is the author of seven books on social interaction; her latest book is a novel called Etiquette for the End of the World. She can be reached at JeanneMartinet.com.

Amy Laurent on her new book and TV show, Miss Advised

By Beth Mellow

On the rocky road to love, many of us are guilty of getting emotionally attached too quickly, drunk texting at 2 a.m. or letting an undeserving ex back into our lives. In the hopes of becoming smarter daters and finding “the one,” we turn to relationship experts to advise us and matchmakers to help us find someone with whom we’ll click.

But would you choose a matchmaker who is guilty of the same dating faux pas as you, who is single and still on the hunt for true love?
Apparently many would, as Amy Laurent’s booming matchmaking business indicates. The thirtysomething singleton who calls the Upper East Side home has been in business for seven years and currently operates offices in New York, Los Angeles, Miami and London. Additionally, since Laurent appeared on Bravo TV’s Miss Advised, a docu-series that ended its season on Aug. 6 focused on the personal lives of three single relationship “experts,” she claims that her services are in more demand than ever. “I’ve seen an uptick in business. Applications for men and women have increased since the start of the show,” she said.

Laurent speculates that the expansion of her client roster has to do with the fact that viewers relate to her.

“What’s interesting is that while I’m out having a drink or at the gym running on the treadmill, women approach me and ask, ‘Are you that girl?’ They tell me that they totally get what I’m going through,” she said. “I think they identify with me in the sense that, like a lot of other women, I am a workaholic and I’ve gone for long periods of time when I don’t even have a date.”

In addition to the series spotlighting the day-to-day at Laurent’s office, it opened a window on her personal life. Viewers were along for the ride when her notorious ex-boyfriend, AB (pronounced “Abie”), who had left her for a job in Saudi Arabia, returns and Laurent, without hesitating, accepts an invitation to see him. On her blog, she admits that she would advise her clients against doing exactly what she did, then ponders, “So what the hell happened to me?”

Laurent continues to open up about her relationship foibles in her new book, 8 Weeks to Everlasting: A Step-by-Step Guide to Getting (and Keeping) the Guy You Want (St. Martin’s Griffin, 2012). In the book, she provides practical advice on how to manage the early, precarious part of a relationship, providing examples from the love lives of clients and friends as well as her own experiences. At one point, she discusses her brief relationship with a television writer named “Quinten” for whom she made herself too available, saying yes to any date, even if it was last minute or inconvenient.

“I’m just like you when it comes to my own heart, but when it comes to guiding you, I’m going to be clearheaded. I’m devoted to it,” she continued coyly. “I think I focus on getting people across their obstacles so I don’t have to deal with my own.”

Laurent realizes it might be risky to her business reputation, but felt it was important to honestly portray herself in her book and on the show. “I’m a very real person and I really thought, I’m so tired of all the experts out there creating this myth that we’re perfect,” she said.
Not only has Laurent used her romantic life as a source to draw from when advising clients, it was her dating experiences that attracted her to matchmaking in the first place. The East Coast native was in her twenties, living in Los Angeles and eager to meet guys. After scoping out a few ads for matchmaking services, she applied to a couple and was disappointed in the men she was paired with.

“Women didn’t pay for the service, so, because of that, I felt that I wasn’t really listened to. I thought more consideration was given to the guys because they were paying clients. I knew that there were things I would do differently if I had my own matchmaking service,” said.
Dissatisfied with her sales job at a custom brokerage, Laurent started her matchmaking company with the goal of making happy matches for both the men and women who enlist her help.

“The women don’t pay for my services, but I listen to them as much as my male clients and consider their thoughts and feelings as just as important,” she said.

Her approach, according to her company’s statistics, has been working. To date, Laurent’s matchmaking has resulted in 27 marriages, with an 80 to 85 percent success rate in finding relationships for her clients. Also, though men pay to be part of the service, Laurent and her team don’t accept poor behavior. In her book she admits to jettisoning one client for making lewd comments to dates and saying sayonara to a guy who would “grill the girls in a passive-aggressive way.”

While Laurent’s reputation for being a fair-minded matchmaker has been great for business, she admits it’s not always great for her already imperfect dating life. She explains that discussing her profession with a potential beau at a cocktail party can be awkward. “I think it’s very intimidating for a lot of men,” she said. “A lot of guys think I will be analyzing them and that it will be weird.”
Nevertheless, Laurent continues her own pursuit of love and sees the television show and book as learning experiences.

“You don’t have to be perfect to be ready to date, but you have to be open and honest. It’s been scary and I felt vulnerable, but I had to be honest with myself,” She said.

For further information about Laurent, visit amylaurent.com. Her book, 8 Weeks to Everlasting, is in bookstores and available at Amazon.com.

This past weekend, I sat with two friends, sipping a Bloomberg-approved iced coffee, when a man on the adjoining bench proceeded to ask my friend holding a book on finance if she was enjoying the book and if she indeed worked in finance. Turns out she is and she is.

The conversation spilled over into further self-disclosure when the stranger asked my friend how long she’s lived in the city, what restaurants she likes and about the fragmented stone bracelet on her wrist. Things seemed to be going swimmingly when almost on cue, a tall, svelte glass of woman traipsed forth and kindly asserted herself as the girlfriend of the garrulous gentleman.

As I collected the lower half of my jaw off the ground, the couple departed arm-in-arm amid the other couples red-rovering along the sidewalk. Finance friend collected herself as cool as a cucumber and insouciantly played the interaction off like it was no big thing. But the question reverberates loudly: Was this man truly a financophile or was he dissatisfied with his current squeeze? Carefully executed research would suggest the latter.

Research conducted by Dr. Rowland Miller has found that commitment to one’s current relationship determines whether people are likely to pay attention to alternative suitors. In a well-designed study, psychologists evaluated whether dating, cohabitating and married couples were more inclined to pay attention to alternative suitors based on their satisfaction with their significant others. First, all participants completed comprehensive dating history questionnaires to assess relationship status and evaluate their commitment to and satisfaction with one another. Couples also privately revealed how attracted they were to each other and whether they believed they could realistically date someone better.

Following this, all couples were presented with pictures of attractive females and males, as well as products from advertisements to conceal the true motivation for the study. Participants were asked to familiarize themselves with the images and were given as much time to spend perusing the slides as desired. Next, couples were asked to look at the photos of the opposite-sex targets and were probed on whether they had any interest in meeting them. After two months, the couples were contacted to re-examine their satisfaction with each other and to determine whether they were still together.

As it turns out, attentiveness to alternatives might be an indicator of relationship failure. Remarkably, those who spent more time looking at the photos of the opposite-sex targets and were more interested in meeting them were less likely to be dating the same partner at the follow-up. Those who had indicated that they were less committed at the start of the study also spent more time inspecting the opposite-sex images than the happier couples.

The couples who were more committed and satisfied in their relationships wore protective blinders and showed less of an appetite for seeking attractive alternatives, evidenced by the equal time they spent gazing at the male and female pictures. These couples who spent less time examining the opposite-sex targets were also the couples who were still in exclusive, committed relationships at the follow-up two months later. Couples who believed that their current partner was better than those they could seek elsewhere were also happier and more likely to remain committed to one another.

What are these magical blinders and how can attached men who talk to pretty girls on benches snag a pair? Turns out, the blinders aren’t built in a day. It’s no secret that relationships take work; sometimes couples have to use protective tactics to maximize the good and minimize the bad. Inattentiveness to alternatives is one of those tactics, where couples in committed relationships choose to block out alternative partners in order to focus on the partner they’ve got.

It’s okay to look someone up and down once in a while, maybe even engage in a “what if” scenario, but if you’re almost subway meat because you were staring so hard at the woman across the platform, envisioning her as the mother of your children, it might be time to examine the state of your relationship. And if it’s really that crossword puzzle answer you’re after and the only available stranger around is Kate Upton’s body double, do your honey a favor and call your grandma.

Kristine Keller received her master’s in psychology from New York University. She currently works at Vanity Fair.

A scene from Darling Companion

The bucolic look of Lawrence Kasdan’s Darling Companion is an indication of its fine sensibility. Kasdan evokes the natural, wooded landscape of Alfred Hitchcock’s idiosyncratic comedy The Trouble with Harry. The colors here are not autumnal nor quite as vibrant, yet Kasdan affects a similar tone of respite.

His three harried couples (Diane Keaton and Kevin Kline, Richard Jensen and Dianne Wiest, Mark Duplass and Ayelet Zurer) explore the communication tensions of love relationships, from habitual complacency and mature passion to first attraction, respectively. It is a lightly charming, minor film.

One would like to praise Kasdan for making an awesome comeback, but the gentle insights and genial tone of Darling Companion merely pick up where Kasdan left off with the immensely appealing (though slight) mystery Mumford—the best film of its kind since John Cromwell’s Small Town Story. Kasdan is not a master of provincial etiquette and amiable social conflicts, he’s just one of the few contemporary filmmakers interested in such niceties.

With nothing profound to say about marriage or parent-child relationships, Kasdan (who co-write the script with his wife, Meg) at least says it calmly and without the self-congratulation of a lewd, immature, Judd Apatow wallow.

Darling Companion is conceived around the man’s-best-friend conceit of middle-aged Beth (Keaton) adopting a dog to take up the void caused by her husband’s (Kline) involvement with his medical practice. At a retreat in the woods, the three couples’ search for the runaway dog becomes an exploration of their own intimacies, dependencies and misconnections.

The conceit is thoughtful, if not quite sophisticated. It never rises to the remarkable level of the affecting man/pet metaphor in We Think the World of You where Alan Bates memorably acted out the prudent gay desires of the pre-Stonewall era. Instead, this is Kasdan’s typical middle-class circle game, as in The Big Chill.

But occasionally, Kasdan tips into profundity with Zurer’s claims of clairvoyant intuition or the sense of faithfulness embodied in the searchers all wearing red dog whistles the way early Christians carried fish signs. (Kasdan’s cutest metaphor has the bickering Keaton and Kline getting lost in the woods and encountering a pair of rams.)

Without the profundity of Mike Leigh’s middle-age exploration Another Year or the classical form of the Warren Beatty farce Town and Country, Kasdan comes off second rate. It has none of the outright satire of Wanderlust, only a sensitive, more mature sense of quietude and resolve.

It’s an old man’s movie (Kasdan is 63), which makes it a blessed rarity in today’s film culture. Finding comfort and fair-exchange value in the compromises that mature couples make, Darling Companion answers back the anxieties that once haunted the middle class, as in William Inge’s archetypal domestic melodrama Come Back, Little Sheba. Kasdan attempts to use his sensitivity about humans and knowledge of life to create a sane entertainment.

Follow Armond White on Twitter at 3xchair

Word travels around the dog community fast, and pretty soon Matthys had a website (leashesandlovers.com) with an online community connecting dog lovers from all over the country.

Matthys also started hearing great stories about how pets had affected owners’ relationships, in both good and bad ways. She started recording these stories and, three years ago, realized she had enough material to write a book.

Leashes and Lovers: What Your Dog Can Teach You About Love, Life, and Happiness (Leashes and Lovers L and L Media, $19.95), discusses the many ways in which dogs and other pets can affect human relationships, from friendships to dating.

“It’s all about starting new relationships and rekindling old ones,” Matthys said. “Dogs can help us do both.”

The book launched March 31, and Matthys held a special event at the venue BLVD on Bowery to mark the occasion. Raffle proceeds were donated to the American Humane Association.

Matthys also announced a new partnership with the Mayor’s Alliance for NYC’s Animals, a coalition of rescue groups and shelters that is working with Animal Care & Control of New York City to move city shelters toward a no-kill policy. Leashes and Lovers events during the spring and summer will feature dogs available for adoption, through the Mayor’s Alliance.

Matthys said one of the surprising things she discovered through her work is that little dogs aren’t always the best city dogs.

“It’s not about the size of the dog in the city. Great Danes and Mastiffs are great. Greyhounds are perfect apartment dogs,” Matthys said. “They are low maintenance and not high energy.”