The first few dates are the free trial period of romantic relationships. Think of it like accepting a sample of lox spread at Costco. You’re seeing how you like it; you aren’t committing to buy a salmon hatchery.

 It sounds like you instead see a date as a Wile E. Coyote-style trapdoor dropping you into a relationship. You and the guy have sex for the first time, and assuming he doesn’t fake his death afterward or ditch a burner phone he’s been texting you from, you two become a thing -- right on track to sign up for those cute side-by-side burial plots.

 The problem is, this is like getting into a relationship with the first stranger who sits down on the bus next to you. You’re skipping an essential step -- the “see who the guy is and decide” part. Even when the guy isn’t just some Tinder rando -- even when you’ve known him for a while -- you need to see who he is as a boyfriend and how you work as a couple.

 Also, making matters worse, if you’re like many women, sex can act as a sort of snuff film for your objectivity, leading you to feel emotionally attached to the man you’ve just slept with. 

Psychologists Cindy Meston and David Buss speculate that this may come out of the orgasm-driven release of oxytocin, a hormone that has been associated with emotional bonding. (In men, testosterone goes all nightclub bouncer, blocking oxytocin so it can’t get to its receptor.)

 To keep sex from drugging away your objectivity, try something: unsexy broad-daylight dates with various guys for just a few hours each. Yes, various guys. It’s not only okay to date more than one guy initially; it’s ideal. (A man with rivals is a man who has to try harder.)

 Meanwhile, your having options should curb any tendency you might have to go all needypants on a guy who, say, doesn’t text you right back — even if his competition’s texts are more preventive distraction than romantic ideal: “What are u wearing? Also, are u good w/Excel?” Or “I know u like fashion. Here’s my penis in a beret.”

Dead wait

 I’m a 35-year-old guy who’s been texting with this girl. She got out of a seven-month relationship two months ago and is still kind of emotional about it. We’ll make plans to go out, but she always cancels at the last minute, claiming that she’s “still a mess” and adding, “Hope you understand!” Should I just keep texting with her and see where things lead?

— Limbo

Think about the guys women get stuck on — those they can’t get to text them back, not those who put out lighted signs visible from space: “iPhone’s always on! Call 24/7! Pick me! Yaaay! Over here!”

 Consider FOMO — fear of missing out — or, in scientist-speak, the “scarcity principle.” That’s psychologist Robert Cialdini’s term for how the less available something is the more valuable (and desirable) we perceive it to be. This is not because it actually becomes more valuable but because scarcity triggers a motivational state — a state of “grab it or lose it!”...”don’t let it get away!”

 Contrast that with how available you are —  to a woman who doesn’t seem ready for a relationship but is up for the emotional perks that come with. So she sucks up the consoling texted attention she gets from you but ducks out of any in-person get-togethers that could eventually lead to your trying to, well, console her with your penis.

 Consider shutting off the therapy spigot and making yourself scarce until she’s ready to date. Tell her you want to take a timeout from texting and give her a little time to heal ’n’ deal and then go on a date. Pick a night — about a month from now — and ask her to put it on her calendar, explaining that it’s fine if she needs to reschedule if she still doesn’t feel ready.

 Putting it on the calendar makes it tangible — but putting it in the future, with an option to push it forward, takes the pressure off. And your disappearing for a while is probably your best shot at shifting your, um, zoological category — to potential “animal in bed” from emotional support animal in the Hello Kitty diaper for the plane.

 

Pouter keg

My girlfriend, who’d been traveling, lost track of what day it was and was surprised when I showed up on the usual night I come cook her dinner. She was happy to see me but said she needed to finish this one “urgent work email.” How nice. Dinner would get cold while she took forever. Instead of getting started in the kitchen, I sat down angrily on the couch. “What’s wrong?” she asked. I said, “I’ll just sit here till you’re ready!” She got angry, saying that I should have just asked her how long she’d be or told her I felt bad. She then went on about how I have a “toxic” habit of this sort of “passive-aggressive” behavior, and I need to stop “acting out” before it ruins our relationship. I love her and don’t want to lose her. Help!

— Doghouse

There will sometimes be reasons you are unable to communicate using the spoken word: Your jaw is wired shut. You are gagged with duct tape. A wizard has turned you into a cocker spaniel.

 Otherwise, when you’d like another person to do something, it’s best not to express this to them in code: “I want you to meet my needs — right after you guess what they are!”

Passive-aggressiveness is a kind of coded communication — a form of “indirect speech,” which is a way of saying something without flat-out saying it. The term “passive-aggressive” was coined by a military psychologist, Colonel William Menninger, during World War II. He used it to describe soldiers who — instead of saying no to a direct order (hello, ugly consequences!) — wiggled out through “passive measures” including “procrastination, inefficiency, and passive obstructionism.”

 Menninger’s term was useful in military memos because, as historian Christopher Lane puts it, the army couldn’t exactly issue a directive against “pouting.” However, there was no research to support it as anything more than a tactic in a certain situation — as opposed to a “personality disorder” a chronic, genetically driven pattern of maladaptive thinking and behavior.

 Yet, in the 1950s, a group of psychiatrists writing the mental disorders bible, the DSM (edition I), took a big, unscientific leap. They willy-nilly added passive-aggressiveness to the list of personality disorders in the book — perhaps because without an official “disorder” label (and diagnostic codes that go with), health insurance companies wouldn’t pay therapists to treat it.

 But consider the weaselly, “passive-aggressive” tack those soldiers took. Though their indirect approach to getting their way was militarily unhelpful, it was anything but “maladaptive” for them personally. It allowed them to avoid both court-martial and getting shot at —  or to stay in bed “sick” instead of going all “10-4!” on scrubbing the grout in the latrines with their toothbrush.

 In other words, indirect communication like theirs is often adaptive, meaning highly useful — a form of diplomacy. As I pointed out in a recent column, per psychologist Steven Pinker, it’s a crafty way to communicate a potentially inflammatory message without causing offense the way baldly stating one’s feelings would. For example, there’s the social relationship-preserving hint about table manners, “Wow, Jason, you’re really ENJOYING that risotto!” instead of the more honest “GROSS! You eat like a feral hog on roadkill!” 

 The thing is, avoiding causing offense can go too far, like when it’s driven by a long-held and unexamined belief that you’re offensive simply by existing and having needs. Understanding that, explore the root of your own passive-aggressive behavior. 

My guess? It’s fear of conflict, or rather, of the results of conflict. Granted, at some point, it was probably protective for you to avoid conflict — and the direct engagement that could lead to it — like if you had a volatile and abusive parent. However, as an adult, indirect communication should be a tool you use when it suits the situation, not a behavior you robotically default to.

 Consider that conflict, when expressed in healthy, noninflammatory ways, can be a positive thing — a source for personal and collective growth and deeper relationships. But to take advantage of this after years of auto-burying your feelings, you’ll need to start by articulating to yourself what you want in a particular situation. Next, while ignoring the protests of your fears, express your needs and/or feelings to the other person with healthy directness: “Hey, can you guesstimate how many minutes till you’re done with your work?” and maybe add “I have a special dinner planned, and I don’t want it to get cold.”

 Admittedly, some conflicts end up in gridlock, which means you won’t always get what you want. However, you’re far more likely to get your needs met if you don’t just fester with resentment or turn every relationship interaction into an intricate game of charades: “Sorry, honey. Still don’t get it. Are you angry or doing a rain dance?”

 

Love you faux ever

How do you know when a man’s “I love you” is for real? I’ve had men express their love to me with great sincerity, only to vanish not long afterward. Are all men this fickle? Manipulative? 

— Upset

 

Why does a man say “I love you”? Sometimes because “Look, a ferret in a top hat!” doesn’t do much to get a woman into bed. 

To parse whether a man’s “I love you” is just the later-in-the-relationship version of “You related to Yoda? Because yodalicious,” you need to consider context. The exact same statement can have different meanings depending on the context -- the situation, the circumstances in which it’s made.

Not surprisingly, research by evolutionary social psychologist Joshua Ackerman and his colleagues suggests that men’s I-love-yous “are likely to be more sincere (i.e., less colored by the goal of attaining initial sexual access) after sex has occurred.”

They also find that men, on average, start thinking about “confessing love” 97 days into a relationship -- so just over three months. Of course, an individual man may know sooner or take longer. 

All in all, the best lie detector you probably have is context — racking up a good bit of time and experiences with a man and seeing how well the walk matches the talk.

You might even wait till the three-month benchmark before concluding that the I-love-yous are likely to be for real — and aren’t, say, the best possible air bag for what might come shortly afterward: “I got you a little something on my work trip. It requires a short course of antibiotics.”

•

(c.) 2018, Amy Alkon, all rights reserved. Got a problem? Write Amy Alkon, 171 Pier Ave, #280, Santa Monica, CA  90405, or e-mail This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it (advicegoddess.com). Weekly radio show: blogtalkradio.