One of my favorite authors and radio show hosts, Dr. Laura, is available. It's been a while since she was widowed. [This was originally posted in August 2019. It's still relevant.]
She makes no secret of the fact that she's into her 70s now. It's not easy for any woman in her 70s to find a new man, but it's going to be even more difficult for Dr. Laura, despite the fact that she knows how to keep men happy (she even wrote a book: The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands) and despite the fact that she keeps herself in excellent shape.
For some men, that their potential partner has the level of fame Dr. Laura has, especially of a controversial nature, is a deal breaker.
I have to wonder if Dr. Laura is going to relax her stance on age differences, at least for people who are past the child-bearing years. Given how active she is, I don't see anything wrong with her dating a man in his 50s, as long as doing so would not divert his attention away from minor children. She has railed against callers dating someone more than ten years younger than them, pointing out that the older person was likely to leave their spouse a widow/widower. But... isn't that what has happened to her? Given her health, it is possible she has multiple decades left. What would be wrong with marrying a man in his 50s, and if he's like most men, he passes in his 70s or 80s? Heck, she might outlive him. [At least one recent call indicated she has softened her stance on age differences, at least if the woman is older. Hmmmm]
If her potential suitor has to be in his mid-60s or older, and has to be active enough to keep up with her on hikes and such, that's going to be a very narrow pool. And if Dr. Laura lives out her long-held stances against casual sex and shacking up, which I expect she will, it's going to narrow the pool even further.
I bring this up because she opened her show one day last week describing that someone in her life had "introduced" her to a potential date, and they talked over the phone for a couple of days. He was honest in saying that he was seeing someone, and he also claimed they weren't committed.
Dr. Laura asked if the woman he was seeing was going to know why he was traveling out of town (which would be to see Dr. Laura). He said no. Dr. Laura ended things and said he wasn't an honorable man.
Now, perhaps there was something being left out of her recounting of this interaction, but based on what I heard, I think she made a mistake in not talking with him further and perhaps seeing him. Hey, it's her life and she can do what she wants, but unless there is an engagement ring on a woman's finger or the man and woman have explicitly agreed they are exclusive, they are free to date others and they should EXPECT that the other person is dating others. As Dr. Laura herself points out, even living together isn't an implication of exclusivity; even if they agreed to it! So why is a man expected to tell a woman he's dating he's going out of town to see another woman? Is she expected to say she's going to dinner with another man?
She may have not been fair to herself or him. But again, it's her decision to make.
This isn't just me pontificating. My mother, who was very traditional when it came to dating and marriage, made it clear that unless my ring was on a woman's finger, that woman was free to date others. I never expected the women I dated to only be dating me, nor tell me they were going on dates with others. We had to have a discussion about exclusivity before we could expect it.
These days, men should never assume the woman they are dating is only dating them, even if they claim to be. And men should never imply to the women they are seeing they are only seeing them. But then I'm telling most men they should never marry at all. Dr. Laura is looking for a keeper.
.
