SuperYenta

Tony Bravo Tells Us How to Add FUN Back Into Dating

The SuperYenta is all about being serious about your love life. In this apt article, writer @tonybravosf reminds us to have fun while you're at it. Be an adult; but don't be too adulty. 

Seizing the dating game like in our youths

When did our dating lives get so … grown up?

The question hung in the air over drinks one night with my oldest friend in the world, Jacqueline, as we surveyed the changes in our romantic scenes since we turned 30. First dates have always been a mixed bag: For every good one, there were easily two that required scouting emergency exits without alarm bells, but they could yield some unbelievably good times if you had a sense of adventure (and humor). Sometimes these adventures led to dating and long-term relationships, sometimes they led to fantastic one-night stands: Either way, we were rarely bored.

 

First dates now seem to involve an added pressure to see if we are connecting right away, as though our time is so limited that we can’t waste a second enjoying the wine selection until we know whether or not we’re on the course for a relationship. If that connection is there, the situation snowballs immediately into determining compatibility and alignment of goals. The stakes seem to be so much higher than they were on the other side of 29. Perhaps it’s the ticking of the biological clock, which is now a wearable that counts your steps each day and measures your vital signs.

“When was the last time you had fun on a first date?” I asked Jacs. She squinted and swirled the brandied cherry in her Manhattan against the glass, a sign she was thinking.

“When did I last wear winter pastels?” she asked.

“2014,” I answered.

“The year before that, then.” As Jacs recounted yet another first date where the topics veered too adulty too soon (past relationships disclosure, career minutiae), I thought about how far she and I had come since we were first dipping our toes into the dating waters.

---

As teenagers, Jacs and I were basically exactly the same as we are now, only with more pedestrian taste in liquor. Like all teenagers in the throes of our first romantic discoveries, everything was absurdly heightened. As we went through all the firsts (first dates, first kisses, first use of concealer to hide those first hickeys inexperienced high school boys left on our necks), they all felt like issues of life and death. The stakes seemed unbelievably high as we struggled to understand that combination of aching and exhilaration that comes with it all. Jacs and I memorized each other’s schedules so we could debrief our dates, no detail being too minor not to discuss.

Where did you go?

What cologne was he wearing?

Were his parents at home or were you able to … have some privacy?

We had our hearts broken almost as often as we didn’t and yet, even with all the drama of young love, we had way more fun sneaking around and stealing moments together in the backseats of cars and behind the school gym than we frequently did as adults dating without chaperones or other restrictions. There was a sense of carpe diem (seize the day) that carried into our young adult romantic lives that had, somewhere along the line, been replaced by checklists of qualities and qualifications for date No. 2.

I missed seizing the date.

---

Another round of Manhattans was called for. Jacs and I wondered what it would take to get out of our first-date slump. We made a list of the things we missed the most about all the first dates past:

Date spot: Not spending an endless amount of time negotiating the venue or trying to impress each other by getting the most-coveted reservation — place was so much less important than person.

Touching: Not endless PDA, but flirty, PG touching while you got to know someone. When did we get so hands off?

Feeling free to make a slightly poor decision: Not a tattoo or an unplanned-pregnancy poor decision, we just missed that margin for error we had on first dates a few years before.

Stupid little details: All the most significant statistics of our lives now had to be disclosed ASAP upon meeting. How were we ever going to learn that our dates once dressed as She-Ra, Princess of Power, for Halloween three years in a row, or that in college they modeled for a graphic novel? The devil, and delight, were in these stupid little details.

Making out: Once upon a time, a successful first date was measured by the make-out session. Kissing remains far more intimate than half of the horizontal activities we get so consumed by.

What all the things we missed boiled down to was a sense of play. Yes, the stakes are higher now. But if we couldn’t enjoy ourselves at least a little on a first date, how would we have any clue whether the next however-many-years were going to be fun?

Tony Bravo is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @TonyBravoSF

Word of the week: Adulty, adjective. Not just being an adult but behaving like one on a date to the degree that you drain all the youthful fun out of it.

 

Find the original article here: http://www.sfchronicle.com/style/article/Seizing-the-dating-game-like-in-our-youths-10938695.php

 

Matchmakers for the over 60 crowd? Superyenta says YES.

Any and all stories about matchmaking are A-OK. Here's one for the over-60 crowd. Go for it!

This article appeared in the New York Times on March 20, 2014. Click here for the article.

Matchmakers Help Those Over 60 Handle Dating’s Risks and Rewards

AFTER Judith Himber’s husband died in 2010, she didn’t know what to do with herself. “It was a stunning loss,” said Ms. Himber, 73, who works full time as a clinical psychologist in Cambridge, Mass.

She was not sure if she would ever want another relationship; her marriage had been long and happy. But after two years alone she realized that she did want a partner. One problem: She hadn’t been on a date in 33 years.

“I felt old, unattractive and the idea seemed ludicrous,” she said. Still, she joined Match.com, JDate and eHarmony, online dating sites. She found it “excruciating.”

“Signing on each morning and seeing that over 100 guys had looked at my profile and none had contacted me was dreadful,” she said.

She also called Peggy Wolman, a matchmaker and dating coach, paying $2,500 for her services, Ms. Wolman’s starting rate. Together, they explored what Ms. Himber, a grandmother of four, was looking for in a mate. Ms. Wolman and her husband, Richard, a psychologist, also administered a personality test and “spiritual inventory.”

Photo

 

Peggy Wolman, a dating coach, believes her age helps give her credibility among the senior set. Credit Evan McGlinn for The New York Times

“These two profiles help us understand the clients’ values and personality styles,” said Ms. Wolman, who works with clients of all ages. “It may not sound very romantic, but finding love is a numbers game. It’s all about increasing odds and being open to new possibilities.”

According to AARP, 45 percent of adults 65 and older are divorced, separated or widowed. The 60-plus crowd represents the fastest-growing segment in online daters, said Wendy K. Watson and Charlie Stelle, professors of gerontology at Bowling Green State University.

Since its start just over a year ago, AARP Dating, which has teamed with HowAboutWe, a website, to suggest actual offline dates, has attracted almost 60,000 users, said Michelle Alvarez, an AARP spokeswoman.

But online dating can be daunting for this demographic. Unlike younger daters, who are versed in the special etiquette of digital romance, many older people struggle with it. And that’s why some seniors are calling matchmakers and dating coaches to help them make sense of the whole situation.

“A surprising number of older people don’t use computers at all, and many who do aren’t comfortable using them for dating sites,” said Judith Gottesman, a geriatric social worker turned matchmaker who works with Jewish singles of all ages along the West Coast.

About 90 percent of the estimated 3,000 matchmakers in the United States will work with seniors, though not necessarily exclusively, said Lisa Clampitt, co-founder of the Matchmaking Institute, which trains professional matchmakers. But she warns prospective clients — especially women — to ask matchmakers how many older men they have in their database. “Older women often get ripped off with empty promises from matchmakers that they have plenty of men for them,” she said.

One of the big dating challenges for both sexes in this age group is that they are so rusty “they go back to their same awkward self at age 20, insecure and unsure,” said Ms. Gottesman, who charges a $3,600 registration fee that is good for up to three years, and an additional $7,200 once a couple is matched. “They might be very trusting of people and they shouldn’t be. They might think if they kiss them good night they’re going to call. Kisses aren’t promises.”

Even so, on some levels, experts say, dating is easier when you are older. Sure, there is a dearth of men, and people can be set in their ways. But they’re also willing to compromise on what they want. “Many women are much more likely to be happy with a guy who has less money, or even less education, than they would have in their 20s or 30s,” said John Holt, a Rhode Island-based matchmaker who has been running his company, Tri-State Dating Service, for 21 years. “They want companionship.”

Indeed, companionship is among the top reasons both men and women over 60 seek love, according to research conducted by AARP on what older singles want. In contrast, most of those 50 to 59 were looking for a serious relationship.

Harold Spielman, 86, is the co-author of “Suddenly Solo: A Lifestyle Road Map for the Mature Widowed and Divorced Man,” which he wrote after his wife of 32 years died in 2008 and he found himself adrift. The founder of a market research firm, Mr. Spielman asked 1,600 men and women over 55 about their feelings on love. Among his findings: More than 80 percent of both men and women said that the main reason to couple was “to share life experiences, past and future,” said Mr. Spielman, who lives in Sands Point on Long Island. Though he is dating, “at this point I’m not prepared to remarry,” he said.

Financial considerations are among the biggest reasons people in their 60s and older are reluctant to remarry, said Pepper Schwartz, a professor of sociology at the University of Washington, and AARP’s love and relationship ambassador. Some fret that they’ll find someone who is “only looking for a secure financial harbor to land,” she said.

Many also worry about protecting their children’s inheritance, which marrying could seriously compromise. Those who do want to remarry “come waving a prenuptial at each other,” said Ms. Schwartz, adding that few get offended because they’re mostly all in the same position.

Jerry Slutzky, 61, an estate planning lawyer and certified financial planner in Tampa, Fla., was divorced for 17 years when he called Nancy H. Wall, a matchmaker and life coach. He had gone the online route but wanted real-world support.

He and Ms. Wall, whose fees range from nothing to $10,000 a year, depending on her level of involvement, spent nearly two hours discussing what he was looking for. She introduced him to about 10 women, whom he initially met at a Starbucks or Panera Bread for a 15-minute introduction. Only two of the women were on dating websites.

“These were women I would never have had an opportunity to meet,” he said. He liked a few but did not end up pursuing any long term. He eventually met his wife, Helen, whom he recently married, online. They signed a prenuptial agreement.

When it comes time to go on the actual date itself, some relationship coaches, like Thomas Edwards, will go out on the town with their charges. Mr. Edwards, 28, is the founder of the Professional Wingman, a social strategy consultancy in New York that helps singles develop better interpersonal skills to improve their love life. About 75 percent of his clients are male; rates range from $1,000 to $5,000 a month.

“We put them in social environments where they’re able to meet people and see in real time what’s preventing them from dating,” said Mr. Edwards, who is currently working with a 63-year-old man. “If I notice he’s saying something that’s not going to be great in conversation, I’ll elbow him and say, ‘Change the subject.’ Or, ‘She’s totally checking you out. Go there and talk to her.’ ”

Ms. Gottesman has her own list of first date no-nos: Don’t talk incessantly about — or show photos of — your deceased spouse. Don’t talk disparagingly about your ex. Don’t whip out your collection of diabetes, cholesterol or heart medications.

And don’t give up — something Ms. Wolman had to keep reminding Ms. Himber.

“There were fun moments, but sometimes I just wanted to pack it in and go back to my knitting,” she said.

And then one day, Robert Galvin, 75, a commercial real estate lawyer in Boston whose partner of 30 years had died six months after Ms. Himber’s husband, contacted her on Match.com. They had three dates.

Then on Christmas Eve 2012, Mr. Galvin went to her home for the first time, ostensibly to take her to see the film “Lincoln.” They never left the house.

“We are madly in love,” she said, adding that they do not expect to marry but that she does have a ring. “I could go on and on about the importance of love at this stage of life. Love is possible in old age and necessary for some of us. And there is passion. I thought old folks went for companionship. There is that, but it is a deep, deep companionship.”

Modern Love, loves love.

This essay originally appeared in The New York Times' Modern Love column. See the original here.

Are all stories about matchmakers worth re-posting? This matchmaker believes so, yes.

A Dollar a Day, for Only 20 Years

By STEVEN PETROW

Published: August 8, 2013

On the cusp of 50, I paid $6,000 to find my next husband.

 

Brian Rea

 

My 30s and 40s taught me about patience, whether it was waiting for the next clean CT scan, the next writing assignment or the next guy to come into my life. Nearing 50, though, I abruptly found myself impatient when it came to finding a husband; for the first time I could see the long arc beyond midlife, and I didn’t want to spend another 10 years looking for my guy.

First I tried online dating, where I met Sporty ‘N Spiritual. After brunch on our first date, he suggested we go see Zhang Huan, a Chinese performance artist, whose act that day consisted of being strapped to a cypress trunk, his naked body painted with a hot-dog purée. Then, well, let’s just say it was a dog day afternoon as the canines were let loose to enjoy the meaty paste. As we watched, Sporty ‘N Spiritual leaned over and whispered, “Kind of turns me on.”

I was impatient for love, but not that impatient.

Meanwhile, as I squandered time on crazy dates, my friend Fred settled into a sane and loving relationship with Gérard. How had they met? Through a real-life matchmaker named Dale, a self-proclaimed yenta with an M.B.A. For $950 each, Fred and Gérard had been promised “10 meeting opportunities.”

What struck me most was not that Fred had paid for the match, but how different Gérard was from every other man Fred had dated.

Fred, a graduate of Oberlin, had worked at Apple and shared my obsession with the English language (our favorite game: find the typos on restaurant menus).

Gérard, a professional chef of Vietnamese descent, had learned English on his own but was fluent in French. He didn’t proofread menus; he created them. The first of Dale’s theories: “You don’t always know who you’re really attracted to.”

Fred and Gérard had been together for six years when I began to noodle about signing up with Dale. They have now been spouses for 17.

“Why not?” I decided, my patience at being single fraying by the day. Yep, I’d pay to play, although the fee was now an astounding $6,000 for the first year (but included “an unlimited number of introductions”). As Dale explained in the smoothest of sales pitches, “You pay an attorney to take care of legal issues, an accountant for financial ones. Why not a professional for the most important element in your life — your love life?”

Certainly the rules of engagement were intriguing. On joining, every member must pledge to seek a “monogamous, committed relationship.” Dale’s second theory: “A couple being monogamous creates more safety in the relationship. Much less can go wrong.”

For a year I squirreled away chunks of mad money, finally signing the big fat check.

When Dale came over for his “home visit” to my one-bedroom San Francisco bungalow, he checked out my books and CDs (back in the day when we had CDs), played with my cocker spaniel and asked me a lot of intrusive questions: H.I.V. status, sexual habits, family relationships. I was eager to hear his advice.

“When you meet the right man, you’ll have to move,” he said. “Your house isn’t big enough for another person.”

Then came the trial by fire: 10 “meeting opportunities” in rapid succession, each one with Dale as the third wheel. “I pick you up, take you out and pay for dinner,” he said. And also sits at the table with you and your “opportunity.” How do you spell “a-w-k-w-a-r-d”!

“I want to see how you interact with people,” he said, “and to understand what qualities you’re attracted to and not.” He also thinks he can sense chemistry before his clients do.

Dale’s third theory: “Most first or second dates go awry not because there’s no chemistry but because someone had a bad day and the communication was off.”

As weird as a dinnertime threesome could feel, it was, at times, a lifesaver to have him around. One of my first dates faltered quickly, and Dale kept jumping in to kick-start the conversation. The guy must have mentioned at least three times that he was a descendant of a Supreme Court justice.

“He’s not for you, sweetie,” Dale said. “You’re bringing out his insecurities.”

Of my 10 candidates, on all of whom I had received files, I was most looking forward to meeting Reardon, No. 8 in my queue. Before I got that far along, Reardon had his eureka (Greek for “I have found it”) moment and withdrew from further introductions.

“Damn,” I said to Dale, unhappy that I hadn’t been first on Reardon’s dating card.

“Be patient,” he replied. “There will be someone else.”

“Patient? I didn’t spend $6,000 to be patient.”

But I had no choice. After all, Dale only introduces his members to other clients, so I had to wait for some new blood. About six months after my disappointment over Reardon, Dale e-mailed me about some other guys, and before signing off, he added: “The perfect candidate for you is about to join.”

Excited, I lobbied Dale for the No. 1 position, not wanting to be left behind a second time, but he didn’t give me the coveted slot. The “perfect candidate” would not be meeting me first.

Fortunately, Dale had mentioned the guy’s name to me (“Jim Bean, as in green bean, not to be confused with Jim Beam, the bourbon”), told me he lived in Marin County, Calif., and was about to bail on Match.com.

With my own Match account still active, it took me six seconds to find JBean48. And what did I do? I e-mailed him immediately.

Later that day Jim replied: “Thanks for your e-mail and the surprise Dale connection. I just signed with him yesterday. I would be delighted to speak with you.”

A week later we met for dinner without Dale, each of us paying our own tab, even though Jim had just plunked down thousands of dollars. Within days there was a second date, then a third, and a plan to meet in New York City over the Christmas holidays.

“You were right, he’s perfect for me,” I told Dale, eager to get Jim off the market. Even though I had subverted Dale’s process by leapfrogging other candidates, he still intended to make sure Jim got his money’s worth and met all of his potential matches.

New Year’s came and went (we spent it together at a romantic B & B) and I was about to take off on a three-week journey to Vietnam (with Fred and Gérard, of course). Dale thought the timing was perfect; with me out of the country, Jim could avoid my angst and any complications as he made his way through his “opportunities.”

I knew better than to say anything to Jim about the dates he would have in my absence. Impatience had brought me to him; now it was time to practice the art of letting go. My situation reminded me of the new-age poster I had over my bed as a teenager in the ’70s: “If you love something, set it free. If it comes back, it is yours. If it doesn’t, it never was.”

As my departure grew near, we continued to see each other but I never raised the topic. Instead of closing my grasp on what I hoped for, I visualized my palms and heart facing up to the sky. I would just have to wait until my trip was over to find out how things would be between us.

Jim had volunteered to take me to the airport, and as we headed south on Highway 101 to the Golden Gate Bridge, he turned to me and said: “I’ve decided not to go through with the other dates. I’ll wait for you to come back. When you’ve met someone this compatible, why take a chance on messing it up?” He then dialed Dale to let him know of our commitment.

Over those weeks we stayed in touch through e-mail (with an occasional call), again learning to be patient, each of us writing at the end of our respective days. Although love letters are a thing of the past, I’ve held on to our e-mail correspondence.

The day before my return, Jim wrote: “I am happy you are in my life, happy knowing you are having a wonderful adventure, happy you will be returning to me. How can I be any happier? I am not worried about taking a leap of faith with you.”

And there he was waiting for me at the airport the next day, which takes me to Dale theory No. 4: “The secret is to know what you want and behave in ways that get you there.”

While I paid a lot to meet Jim, I’m comforted by the math. After almost nine years, the cost of finding him has plummeted to a mere $2 a day, and in another decade it’ll be less than a dollar. In our view, a bargain.

 

Steven Petrow is the author of “Steven Petrow’s Complete Gay and Lesbian Manners” and writes the “Civil Behavior” column for The New York Times. He can be found on Facebook and on Twitter.

Charles Schumer, a senator after my own heart *and* opportunity to learn how to make matches!

As seen in today's New York Times: You go, Chuck!

 

Senator, Senator, Make Me a Match: For Staff, Schumer Is Cupid

In-Sync Photography

Mr. Schumer, left, dances at the wedding of Cathie Levine, a former staff member.

By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM

Published: August 17, 2012

Even by the standards of Capitol Hill, where ambitious and awkward young people are thrust together in cramped workplaces and crowded bars, the nuptial output of Senator Charles E. Schumer’s office stands out.

Connect with NYTMetro

Follow us on Twitter and like us on Facebook for news and conversation.

Enlarge This Image

Richard Perry/The New York Times

For his part in their union, Elizabeth and Farrell Sklerov honored Mr. Schumer by naming their dog after him.

Enlarge This Image

Sally Brewer

Mr. Schumer at the wedding of Elizabeth Stanley and Sean Sweeney. The senator would press Mr. Sweeney to propose. “He would just keep saying, ‘Let’s go already,’” Mr. Sweeney said.

Schumer staff members, put simply, like to marry each other. There have been 10 weddings so far, and two more scheduled this fall — an average of nearly one “Schumer Marriage” (his term) for each year he has spent in the Senate.

Cupid’s arrow lands where it will, but many of the couples say that Mr. Schumer, a New York Democrat, has an unusual knack for guiding its journey. He keeps close track of office romances, quotes marriage-friendly Scripture (“God to man: be fruitful and multiply”), and is known to cajole, nag, and outright pester his staff (at least those he perceives as receptive to such pestering) toward connubial bliss.

Forget Master of the Senate. This is the Yenta of the Senate.

“What’s the holdup?” the senator asks couples who are dillydallying on an engagement. “Did you get a ring yet?” Other could-be-marrieds receive a simple instruction: “Get moving!”

“He would just keep saying, ‘Let’s go already,’ ” recalled Sean Sweeney, a top Democratic strategist who began dating the woman who would become his wife when they were on Mr. Schumer’s staff in 1999. When he proposed, the senator reacted “like a sportscaster,” Mr. Sweeney said. “ ‘Goooooal!’ ”

The encouragement rarely stops at the altar. Mr. Schumer is described by aides as a fabulous wedding guest, quick to request a Jefferson Starship song from the D.J. and eager to dance with the bride. And his focus, like many a politician’s, never strays far from his legacy: first comes Schumer Marriage, then come Schumer Babies.

“Have kids; have a lot of kids,” Mr. Schumer, who has two daughters, is known to intone. “Start early and keep having them.”

Sometimes, Mr. Schumer greets a former staff member, “So, is your wife pregnant again?” Other times, he does not even bother with the question. One former aide, who asked not to be named, recalled seeing the senator bump into a recently married couple, both Schumer alumni. “He just stared down at her midsection and said, ‘Well?’ ”

In an interview in his Manhattan office, Mr. Schumer grinned and giggled as he recalled the couples he had brought together.

“Our staff is a family,” Mr. Schumer said, his voice often taking a paternal tone. “I want them to be happy. I get worried that they’ll be lonely. So I encourage them. If I think it’s a good match, I try to gently — as gently as I can — nudge it.”

Mr. Schumer, who prides himself on training the next generation of Democratic leaders, runs his office like a Congressional West Point: boot-camp hours, sky-high expectations, and a powerful alumni network. Mr. Sweeney runs a major “super PAC” that supports President Obama; another alumnus, Josh Vlasto, is the press secretary for Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, and he plans this fall to marry Megan Murphy, Mr. Schumer’s scheduler.

But in between teaching the art of press strategy and budget talks, “Chuck,” as his young staff members call him, likes to impart a different kind of counsel: how to live well. His matrimonial maxims are repeated so often that staff members can finish the lines for him.

“It brings him joy,” said Risa Heller, a former communications director, one of more than a dozen former aides who recounted his sayings, often while imitating his voice. “He picks good people to work for him, and when they pick each other, it’s even better.”

The senator said he took care to tailor his pitch, realizing that some may be more open than others. But he is known to plot a surprise, now and then. Josh Isay and Cathie Levine met in 1997, when Mr. Schumer was serving in the House. The two thought they had kept their relationship a secret — until Mr. Isay’s going-away party, at which Mr. Schumer announced to the entire staff that the couple “can now be public about what we all already know.”

The two were mortified, although happy with the enormous grin on Mr. Schumer’s face. The senator later signed the ketubah, a Jewish marriage contract, at their wedding, and stayed late at the reception. “I have pictures of him doing the Love Train,” said Mr. Isay, now an influential political consultant in New York.

Four of the couples interviewed for this article recalled similar experiences. “I just about tried to melt into the floor,” laughed Moira Campion McConaghy, whose relationship was revealed by the senator at a holiday party.

Later, when she and her boyfriend told Mr. Schumer they were engaged, the senator began recommending reception halls near Ms. McConaghy’s hometown, Endicott, N.Y. “He was bringing his knowledge of the entire state to our wedding planning decisions,” said Ms. McConaghy, now the legislative director for Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat.

Romance can be inevitable in an office of like-minded young politicos. “You have to be a certain type of personality in order to be successful in Schumer World,” Mr. Isay said, describing the senator’s ideal hire as “Type-A, hard-working, fast-talking.”

But Mr. Schumer likes to keep a thumb on the scale, interrupting late-night policy meetings to grill aides for gossip on potential couples. And he occasionally counsels against choices that he deems questionable. “Marry a solid, good person,” he says.

Daniel Squadron, a former assistant to the senator, was set up by Mr. Schumer and his wife, Iris Weinshall, a former New York City transportation commissioner whose chief of staff, Elizabeth Weinstein, had caught Mr. Squadron’s eye.

If Ms. Weinshall called, Mr. Schumer “would ask with a giggle if I had spoken to Liz,” Mr. Squadron recalled. Once, all four bumped into one another at a Starbucks. The senator “was clearly proud of how flustered we were,” Ms. Weinstein recalled.

Years later, after the couple married, Mr. Squadron confided to the senator that Ms. Weinstein was pregnant. Mr. Schumer was so excited that he blurted it out at a news conference — not knowing that the couple had not yet told friends and colleagues.

“After the marriage happens, the immediate question is: when is the baby?” said Mr. Squadron, who is now a New York state senator. “After the baby happens, the immediate question is, when’s the next one?”

Mr. Schumer often says his biggest regret was not having more kids. “Everyone has a hole inside themselves,” he said.

“They don’t know they had it until they have kids, and then that hole fills up. And it’s so great; it’s just God’s greatest gift to us.”

Couples that have not spoken to the senator in years receive calls when their child is born. “I was in a state of shock,” said Laura Block, who gave birth 11 years after leaving Mr. Schumer’s employ. “My phone rang and they said, ‘Can you please hold for Senator Schumer?’ I had just gotten home from the hospital.”

Schumer couples, in turn, often find ways to recognize the senator’s role in their lives. Farrell and Elizabeth Sklerov, who met while interning for Mr. Schumer in 2003, named their black-and-white Shih Tzu after him.

Ms. McConaghy, at her wedding, played “It’s Raining Men” in his honor. (Mr. Schumer loves the song — in the interview, he explained its message as: “It’s going to rain men, so you’re going to find somebody nice.”)

Mr. Schumer, whose wedding in 1980 was encouraged by a colleague in the New York State Assembly, said his goal was to ensure that the people under his charge could prosper without sacrificing happiness at home.

“There are two tests in life, more important than any other test,” he said, his voice growing soft as the sun set behind him. “On Monday morning, when you wake up, do you feel in the pit of your stomach you can’t wait to go to work? And when you’re ready to go home Friday afternoon, do you say, ‘I can’t wait to go home’? ”

“If you can say yes to both those tests,” Mr. Schumer said, “God has been good to you, don’t complain.”

 

Ahhh. The heart warms...

If you're warmed up enough to learn how to be a matchmaker, attend the Guru of All Matchmakers --Rachel Greenwald's in person how to seminar! Here are the details:

Are you interested in becoming a professional matchmaker and dating coach? Rachel Greenwald, NY Times bestselling author of "Find a Husband After 35: Using What I Learned at Harvard Business School" is teaching a training bootcamp Oct. 25-26 in Denver. Check out her website www.HaveHimAtHello.com and email her for more info: [email protected]

 

 

BuzzFeed's Most Awful Dudes in Online Dating

Look no further, my lovelies! BuzzFeed did a wonderful job of culling the biggest dating online dating time bombs in the history of this fine love marketplace. Read on......WARNING: CONTAINS EXPLETIVES.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/annals/the-most-awful-dudes-in-online-dating-in-the-whole

You might assume, when you start online dating, that the people who
are trying to date you will not be wholly hostile to all people of your
gender. You would be wrong. The internet is full of He-Man Woman-Haters
who not only use their profiles to vent about how much women are the
worst, but also send some pretty choices missives right into your inbox.
There are plenty of women who hate men online too, but for whatever
reason, straight ladies who are mad at dudes tend to keep it under wraps
when they’re trying to date dudes.

The men who hate women are not nearly as subtle. And a few of them are just plain sad. Like this OK Cupid gent:

Fuck
you c***, your a worthless piece of shit like all women. All I want is a
relationship and sex. Report me and get me banned from this shit site
again. So I can get some kind of little life back I had.

There’s a lot to love here, but the fact that he’s been banned from OK Cupid before makes it extra special. Worthless pieces of shit: Can’t live with ‘em, can’t live without ‘em!

Some
men, not content to just call you names, will opine on whether or not
you should have rights (answer: usually no). Like this man, who
inexplicably messaged a woman with the following commentary:

 That’s one way to determine who should have rights and who shouldn’t, I suppose. Some men, though, prefer women on their knees:

 He wants someone who’s not a whore, a feminist or an idiot, who
doesn’t cause problems, who’s hot, who will blow him and who will let
him spank her. I’m pretty sure they sell women like that at a few
specialty shops, air pump not included.

Or you could just date a small child:

 

  When they aren’t looking for a woman who has the attributes of a
pre-teen stereotype (Adorable! Doesn’t talk back! Finds magic in the
little things!), He-Man Woman-Haters are mostly looking for women who
will just go along with whatever He-Man wants – they’ll laugh at his
jokes, they won’t be bitches by arguing with him, they won’t expect
anything. And they will definitely appreciate that he is racist and
sexist and awful:

 

 I appreciate the effort he put into alphabetizing this. I’m sure
there are many women who would otherwise avoid a guy who calls them
cunts, throws the n-word around and goes on racist tirades that he then
writes off as “unfiltered humor,” but his attention to detail and
determination to hit every single letter of the alphabet no doubt
convinced several women to think twice about clicking “delete message.”

And
for those who want a true gentleman who doesn’t mind that you don’t
look like Scarlett Johansson, there’s this OK Cupid “I’m looking for”
gem:

 

 “Lower your standards you shallow cunt” is an appropriate mating call. I hope it works, because it's the only chance he's got.

Any Manic Pixie Dream Girls in the house?

Feeling pinched? Real Simple decodes the cost of online dating

Clients know that SuperYenta loves online dating sites. They keep you limber, “in the market,” and helps hone that list of yours.

Real Simple Magazine recently published a side by side comparison of the costs of online dating sites. Excluding jdate (my favorite), here’s how plentyoffish, match, true, and eharmony stack up………

No excuses! Get out there and create your (in some cases FREE) profile! Then call your SuperYenta to edit it.

 

http://www.realsimple.com/work-life/money/cost-comparison-internet-dating-sites-00000000028239/index.html

 

 

Cost Comparison: Internet Dating Sites

Millions of potential mates are just a click away on Internet dating sites. Here are 4 of the most popular, by the numbers.

 

PlentyofFish.com

Price: Free.
Users per month*: 2.75 million.
Registration time: 12.5 minutes.
Pros: Costs nothing; easy to use; has a huge pool of people to flirt and connect with; boasts 120,000 marriages a year.
Cons: Distorted or fuzzy images; unattractive website.

 

Match.com

Price: $30 per month.
Users per month*: 2.75 million.
Registration time: 15 minutes.
Pros: Simple to navigate; finds matches based on keyword descriptions; provides apps for smartphones.
Cons: Poor screening techniques.

 

True.com

Price: $50 a month.
Users per month*: 2.5 million people.
Registration time: 10 minutes.
Pros: Safer than some sites, since members must submit to a background check; has a fun, flirty environment.
Cons: Tacky advertisements.

 

EHarmony.com

Price: $60 a month.
Users per month*: 1.75 million.
Registration time: 25 minutes.
Pros: They do the matching for you, based on a detailed questionnaire; an advice section with expert and member tips.
Cons: Generic profiles; more expensive than other sites.

*The numbers for users per month are based on research by ComScore.

SuperYenta Question of the Day: To Text or Not to Text?

 

Hey this free advice thing is catching on!

Here’s another letter from a hopeful. As the Reverend says, “Keep hope….ALIVE!”

Love,

SY

***

 

Dear SuperYenta,

 

What is the proper way to follow-up with a gent after a nice date?  Should a lady reach out to him (either by phone or email) and thank him or should she wait to hear from him?

 

Signed

LVS2TXT

 

Dear Loves,

 

If you have a nice time on a date you most certainly should follow up to say thank you. The part that requires critical thinking is how and how you communicate. For starters, it is not okay to text a thank you, no matter how many times you may have texted your date in the past. Texting is so common and easy to misinterpret that its irrelevant – if you really had a good time and you really want to see the guy again, doesn’t he merit a response that shows him you mean it when you say you want to see him again? Email is a better option, and calling is even better. The more important point is when.

 

Please do not text a date for a thank you as you are speeding away from the date in a cab. No matter how fun and exciting your date was, texting is the lowest class way to communicate. Feh!

Wait until the next morning and compose a nice, short thank you that stays on point and brings up one element from your conversation of the night before. Such as, “Subject: Thank you.  Body: Hi <date>, I really enjoyed our coffee yesterday and hope we get together again soon. Good luck with your work trip to LA. Best, <your name>”

 

If you call on the phone and get voicemail, your message can be as simple as the one I wrote above. If he picks up the phone, you can say, “I just want to say thank you for yesterday, which was really fun.” Let him do the rest of the talking. Then hang up and move on. If he wants to see you again and he’s a mensch, he should indicate that during this call. If he doesn’t indicate, you have my permission to move on immediately.

 

Good luck,

 

SuperYenta

New Feature! SuperYenta Q & A

Hi lovelies,

 

Spring has sprung! There’s pollen in the air and the SuperYenta has been super busy. Take the snatches of sun as a hint: get out there and meet people. To celebrate, here’s a new feature that will appear on these pages from time to time: SuperYenta Q & A, in which real single people write in questions that I answer online.

 

So go on with your bad selves – get out there and roll around in the mud!

 

SuperYenta

***

 

Dear SuperYenta,

 

I would like to try internet dating, but my work is sensitive (I'm a professor) and I am not comfortable putting my personal information and photo out into the ether. It could be problematic for my clients/students. What do you suggest? 

 

Signed, 

Occupational Hazard

 

 

Dear OH,

 

Your SuperYenta is a huge fan of Internet dating, especially in the Jewish community. Jdate has become so de rigueur that even when two people meet in person and not online, they often ask, “What’s your Jdate profile name?” To that point, it would be good for your dating career to have an online profile.

 

I can think of two solutions to your question. Each one corresponds to a relative security level you need to feel comfortable about your identity.

1. Security level: medium risk.

Begin with a modified profile. Keep your essay answers to a minimum and cite the reason: “I’d love to say more but I need to keep my answers brief because I’m an educator.” Add one flattering photo of how you look in the classroom on a good day. Say a prayer to the classroom gods that your students aren’t searching for mates who are your age and hit the “submit” button.

2. Security level: no risk.

Go old school. Just because the rest of the modern universe is using the Internet for dating, doesn’t mean you have to. Your options include everything from working with a matchmaker, such as myself, or using old fashioned foot to the pavement methods, such as marketing. A great way to market your availability is by talking to people. And by people I mean everyone you come into contact with, from your Starbucks barista to your coworkers at school.  You can tell each person just what you wrote to me: “I’m ready to meet someone but I can’t use online dating because of my job. Do you know anyone who is (insert your list of immutable attributes) for me?” You’ll be surprised at how many responses you get when you put your message out there.

 

So go for it! And don’t let your occupation slow you down.

 

Love,

SuperYenta

Vows wows with another thoughtful list!

Hi dear reader,

 

SuperYenta regulars know I’m a huge fan of The Times’ Vows column. The weekly stories are little postcards from Marriageville, each with its own “how we got here” story.

 

I especially like how the columns mention making lists for your ideal mate as if it is – and should be – de rigueur. The SuperYenta always says, “Exactly!” or “Go on, girl!” when she reads this in a Sunday’s Vows.

 

This past Sunday was no exception. Nikki Johnson, a woman after my own heart, held out until she was 42 so that she could find a man who matched her, “handwritten compilation of the 50 or 60 traits and characteristics she wanted in a mate.”  Now Nikki, you know the SuperYenta recommends starting with 50 and narrowing that list down to, say, seven or ten traits. But if you got all 60 in one guy, you’re a super star.

 

And I don’t care where you put your traits. Like Nikki, you can write them by hand and keep adding to them over time. You can keep a spreadsheet on your computer. You can put them on the back of a business card and put it in your wallet. Tattoo them on the inside of your arm, put them in a bottle and send them out to sea, add them to your email signature…..I don’t care as long as you make your list and publicize it.

 

When I say publicize, I mean tell everyone. Be able to rattle off your list to anyone who asks about your love life (which is everyone if you’re over 30 and single). They say, “Well, are you dating?” and you say, “I just haven’t found that special soulful, sophisticated, swing dancer who can sing yet.” (ß check it, that list is only four items long!). Your inquisitor just might answer back, “I know just the person for you!”*

 

Way to go, Nikki and Raymond Johnson. This SuperYenta thinks you’re super.

 

*For more terrific marketing tips, get yourself a copy of Rachel Greenwald’s Find a Husband book and read the chapter on marketing.

SuperYenta on Lady Brain.
Thank you, Lady Brain, for featuring SuperYenta in time for Valentine's Day. Listen up and spread the love, y'all.

http://networkedblogs.com/p27846442

Show time runs approximately 15 minutes.