533 - How to be Dateable with Julie Krafchick & Yue Xu

Welcome, Julie and Yue!

We’re excited to welcome Julie Krafchick and Yue Xu from the podcast Dateable! Julie and Yue are active daters turned dating insiders, and top influential voices of modern dating, relationships, and connection in the digital world. They’re the authors of How To Be Dateable: The Essential Guide to Finding Your Person and Falling in Love and the co-hosts of the hit podcast Dateable, which has been named one of the top podcasts about modern dating and relationships by the New York Times, The Huffington Post, Oprah Daily, and more.

This episode, Julie and Yue answer the following questions about dating:

1. Can you tell us about your worst date ever and how it led you to learn about dating and teaching it to others?

2. What was the moment you both realized the traditional dating advice wasn't working? Was there a specific experience that made you say 'something needs to change?’

3. In the book, you talk about dating archetypes. What are the different archetypes you explore?

4. Could you share a story of someone who completely transformed their dating life after understanding their archetype?

5. Can you each share a time when you had to apply your own advice to your dating life? What emotions came up, and how did it turn out?

6. What's a piece of conventional dating wisdom that you used to believe but now completely disagree with? What changed your mind?

7. When it comes to dating advice, we want to hear the most surprising piece of dating advice you've ever given that actually worked? Can you walk us through that specific case, but before that, can you tell us the most common advice you need to give?

8. How do your perspectives on dating sometimes differ from each other? Can you tell us about a time you disagreed on advice for a listener?

9. Can you give us a preview of something that we could learn from your book and immediately start applying in our dating lives?

Find more from Yue and Julie on social media @dateablepodcast!

Transcript

This document may contain small transcription errors. If you find one please let us know at info@multiamory.com and we will fix it ASAP.

Jase: On this episode of the Multiamory Podcast, we're talking about how to be dateable with the hosts of the Dateable Podcast. I personally am excited to finally learn how to date after all this time in my life. This is the one skill I haven't developed yet, so I'm really excited for that. The hosts are Julie Krafchick and Yue Xu. They are active daters turned dating insiders and top influential voices of modern dating relationship and connecting in the digital world.

They're the authors of the new book, How to Be Dateable: The Essential Guide to Finding Your Person and Falling in Love, and the co-hosts of the hit podcast, Dateable, which has been named one of the top podcasts about modern dating and relationships by The New York Times, The Huffington Post, Oprah Daily, and more. Julie and Yue, thank you so much for joining us today.

Yue: Thanks for that intro, Jase. That was great.

Julie: We are so happy to be here.

Jase: Awesome. To start off, I want to hit you with a big one, which is, could you each tell us about your worst date ever and how that led to you becoming dating insiders and teachers about it?

Julie: Ooh, we got to go to the archives. I love it.

Yue: Ooh.

Emily: Way, way back in the day.

Yue: To clarify, worst date as in we were the victim of the bad date, or we were the perpetrator.

Dedeker: Ooh, I love that clarification.

Emily: Oh goodness.

Dedeker: Okay. Myself, personally, I want to know about where you were the perpetrator. I think it's easy to complain about someone else and all their stuff.

Jase: The Instagram's full of that.

Emily: I love that.

Dedeker: A lot harder to talk about our own mess-ups.

Emily: I'm impressed that you even went there, by the way. Well done from that standpoint.

Dedeker: Yes.

Emily: Yes, please.

Dedeker: Self-Awareness. Self-awareness.

Julie: I feel like I know what story Yue is going to tell.

Yue: I don't know if it's going to be the one you're thinking of because I actually think this one's a little bit more dramatic or in my eyes. This is before icks became such a hot thing. I got the ick, so I went on a second date with someone. Our first date was hot and steamy. We went to this restaurant, made out, had a great time. I was like, "He's so sexy." Someone I'm into. Our second date was a hiking date outside in broad daylight. I showed up; I pulled up in my Uber, and in my Uber, I saw him. I was like, "Oh, no," he was wearing black socks.

Julie: God forbid.

Yue: That was the reason.

Julie: God forbid.

Yue: That was the reason.

Dedeker: That was what it was?

Yue: He was wearing black socks with white sneakers, high black socks. I got the ick. I got out of the Uber, and I told him that I wasn't feeling great, that we could go for like a half a mile hike or whatever it was, but then I quickly went home. I think he was very confused. I thought we really got along, but it was the black socks.

Dedeker: Can I defend you really quick? Any listeners who are surprised by that? First of all, clarifying question: was this in Los Angeles?

Yue: This was in SF.

Emily: Oh.

Dedeker: Oh, okay. Maybe less defensible. I don't know because I was thinking about how--

Julie: We have less worse fashion. I don't know.

Dedeker: Well, no, I was thinking more how in Los Angeles, at least, when I was dating in Los Angeles, when you go on a hike, usually it's like, let's go to Runyon Canyon. Someone’s going to show up in heels and perfect makeup. It's not like, "Oh, we're going to get grubby and sweaty." It's, "We're going to go on parade in Runyon Canyon." In that case, I'm like, "Oof. Yes. If you feel like somebody is not showing up for their red carpet, Runyon Canyon walk, then I understand." San Francisco, I'm less familiar with. I'm not sure.

Yue: Honestly, he was just his normal self. Our first date, it was both of us stressed up. It was dark, it was sexy. The scene was a little different, but the second date, it was full on authenticity, and I think I was not ready to face that authenticity with him.

Dedeker: Makes sense. Makes sense.

Jase: Wow.

Dedeker: Too many words too fast.

Emily: How about you, Julie?

Julie: I'm trying to think of when I was the perpetrator, but I don't know if there's one date that's coming to mind. There's like--

Jase: It's never happened.

Julie: I've just been a perfect dater all my life. I think what I'm thinking of, though. I have a couple moments maybe I'll share. I think one that comes to mind is that I would triple-book dates sometimes. I would go on three dates-

Jase: Oh.

Julie: -in a single night. I would--

Dedeker: A single night?

Julie: Yes.

Dedeker: Not even spread throughout the day?

Julie: No.

Dedeker: Oh my goodness.

Julie: Because I was trying to maximize the fact that it takes time to get ready for dates. It's a process.

Emily: Sure.

Julie: I started to go uber efficiency mode. The pro--

Jase: I see. You only need to do your hair and makeup once, and then you're good.

Julie: Right.

Jase: Okay. No, I get it. I get it. That makes sense.

Julie: Usually, I would do two, but there was one night I squeezed three in. Why it was bad is because I was showing up-- I remember I was actually hitting it off with someone, and I had to go onto the next and really cut it short. The next one, I was not present because I was thinking of the next one. I think the whole time, it was all about orchestrating this whole master night and plan rather than getting to know the person in front of me and giving them the proper respect of that date.

Dedeker: You were trying to set your own personal record?

Dedeker: Well, I don't know if that is your personal record. I shouldn't assume.

Julie: I stopped doing it, because it actually wasn't effective. I think this other thing that I used to do too, and maybe people can relate, we see this a lot, is like I would never put people's names in my phone. I would just put their numbers and leave it as a blank because I was going in with this mentality of, "I'm never going to see this person again." Why even put their name in my phone? Looking back, that was such a bad mentality to go into dates. I might as well have not gone at that point.

Emily: Can I talk about the irony of this? I feel like the two of you, even though presumably I'm not 100% sure, but you're monogamously dating or dating with the idea of monogamy in mind. I feel like all y'all have dated way more people than the three of us, which is really interesting. Maybe that's not true. I guess at our whole-

Julie: No, probably is.

Emily: -grand scheme of dating life, maybe we've dated quite a few.

Jase: I've dated a decent number of people share.

Emily: A decent amount. You're right. Yes. We've dated a decent amount, but then recent--

Dedeker: I don't have my spreadsheet ready.

Julie: Well, it gets different, like with monogamous daters, it's almost like you're on this mission to get to the end. You're just going to churn through people if you're in that numbers game mentality, which we actually, after doing Dateable, do not believe in, but we are both there at one point of our lives. A lot of people are there.

Dedeker: I want to hear more about what changed your mentality on that because there are people out there who are very much ascribed to that idea of it's a numbers game. You got to expose yourself to as many people as possible. You have to maximize, you have to be efficient. I presume that that approach is meant to be a counterbalance to taking your time, opening yourself up to more emotional risk, having more hopes pinned on a particular person than possibly having your hopes dashed against the rocks.

It seems like maybe this whole maximize efficiency in numbers is supposed to counterbalance that, but was there a particular moment when you realized, "Oh, yes, this is not the way to do it." Was it after that triple-header night, or was it a different moment?

Julie: I think it is in that realm of you're just not giving people the proper attention and connection points. I think people can feel like when they're in a lineup. At the end of the day, if you are monogamous and you really are looking to just meet one person, you don't need to be going on hundreds of dates. You clearly need to go on enough dates. If you go on one date a year, it's going to be hard to meet that person, but we find that people look at dating so much in terms of validation that it's more about that end of it of, "I am proving to myself that I'm worthy, that all these people like me," opposed to actually finding the right match.

Jase: Yes. We were actually just recently having a conversation a few episodes ago, where we hit on that of sometimes your motivation for dating is more about, "I just want to see if I am attractive enough, if I'm interesting enough, if I'm capable of getting people to date me," essentially.

Yue: Yes. We call it the validation trap in our book because dating is very personal, and we take it personally. We hear a lot of people saying, "I'm not getting as many matches as my friends do," or, "I'm not getting as many dates as my friends do." It's a lot of comparison. Ultimately, we're like, "Do you really have time to have relationships with the 20 people you're talking to?" Probably not. There are two defining moments for me, specifically. One is we interviewed a friend of mine who had gone on 900-some Tinder dates in one year.

Jase: Wow.

Yue: She would--

Jase: One year, what?

Yue: She actually--

Emily: We're proving your point right here.

Yue: She would do a Julie times three in a day. She would go on sometimes 6, 7, 8 dates in one day. She would block them out 15 minutes, a coffee day, a walking day, a before-lunch day, after-lunch day, a snack day, an afternoon tea day. This was in New York.

Dedeker: I'm not lying that I'm starting to hyperventilate just-

Julie: I know.

Dedeker: -hearing about that.

Julie: When we talked to her, I was like, "Are you working?" "Do you have a job?"

Emily: Yes, dude, what else do you do anything else in your entire life? Do you see?

Julie: The answer was no.

Yue: No, she didn't. The irony was she met her husband, but not on the apps. She met him the one day she took off from dating. She went to a hotel lobby bar with her friends just to catch up. That's where she met this guy, who she's now married to and they have five kids. That was a defining moment because I also had friends who had dated her.

Julie: She goes big.

Dedeker: I was going to say no half measures.

Yue: The energy she was giving off, from the feedback I was getting from my friends who had dated her, said she couldn't even make eye contact on the dates because you could tell she was thinking about the next date or whatever she had planned. Like what Julie was saying too, she was more interested in pretzeling people into a schedule, that was the project instead of connecting with people. It's just really ironic that she ended up finding her husband not through this numbers game. The second defining moment, which is actually recent for me, is I listened to the Gottman's talk about how we're all compatible.

This is our famous quote, "We're all compatible." We just don't give each other enough time to connect and to make an effort to be compatible with each other. That's why we're always like, "There's nobody good out there." It's because we're just not giving each other that time to unfold, to connect, to build a relationship, or to even build a friendship.

Dedeker: I'm going to bring it back to this idea of numbers, and on our show with more of a non-monogamy focus, the questions we tend to feel have to do with how many people is too many people to actually be carrying on relationship with at once or what are the common problems that come up when you're in multiple relationships at the same time. From a dating perspective, and especially dating with monogamy in mind, what's the rubric for someone to figure out the right number of people to be dating or evaluating at the same time?

Julie: I'm curious what you say first for relationships.

Dedeker: I think the tactic that I tend to take is that, do you have the space and the energy to show up the way that you want to be showing up as a partner in multiple relationships? As the way that you're showing up landing on the people in your relationship with as kind, compassionate, attentive. If that's not the case, there's no real objective number. If that's not the case, then you're probably trying to take on too many relationships.

Emily: I will say that that number ebbs and flows throughout the course of one's life. The three of us, for example, when we were starting out non-monogamous, we dated a lot more people. We felt like we had time for a lot more people and a lot more time for relationships as well. Whereas I feel like two is almost pretty much the maximum for any of us at this point to committed partnerships. More than that, it's way too much because we also have work, and we have this podcast, and a variety of things that would take up too much time from a potential third person, for example.

Julie: Honestly, I'm even impressed that you do too. I feel like between one in life, it feels very daunting. I would go on a similar note of like, what's your capacity? There are stats out there that it's three people max at a time is ideal for conversations. Because anything beyond that, you start to lose track of who you're talking to and what conversations you're having. I think people have to find what works for them. Ultimately in dating, for some people, it is one at a time.

It's like, "I'm going to give this person a real shot. If it doesn't work out, I can always go back to the apps. I can always go back to meeting people in the wild." For others, they do like to have a couple of people in rotation. They don't get ahead of themselves. I think having no more than three, at least, that gives you a chance to start to actually form connections with these said people.

Jase: I think that tracks a little bit with when I was dating more, like Emily mentioned, when we were younger and I was less employed at the time, so I had more free time.

Julie: It's a factor.

Jase: That I would often find three still tended to be a number where it would be, say, I had two more committed, more entangled relationships, and I might still go on some dates, but that would generally be dating around, getting to know new people, see what works out there, or maybe I would be dating one person in a more serious entangled relationship. That's a little bit more casual relationship, and then maybe occasionally going on other dates.

There was that-- once you got past that three, at least for me, even then when I had a lot more time and energy for that, it did start to get harder at that point. Harder to manage your time, harder to manage your energy, show up fully for each of those people.

Yue: Yes, I can see that. I think a relationship that we often forget is that there's also dating yourself, too. This is like something we talk to our daters about is, yes, you might be able to balance three, but make one of them you. You should be devoting one day a night as a date with yourself as a night to get to know yourself better and to pamper yourself. When we spread ourselves too thin and give our energies out to too many people, we actually end up neglecting the most important person, which is ourselves.

Dedeker: What does that look like for the two of you personally? Have there been times where you have been really on point with dating yourself versus times where you've really neglected?

Julie: I think for me, when I got into my current relationship, that was very serious that I was doing life with this person. It felt like it was hard to balance work and being with them and then also making time for friends. I feel like I was that person that I'm like, "I never want to just like ditch my friends the second I get into a relationship." I hate those people, and I don't want to be that. I went in overdrive to not have that happen. Then I realized that I really had no time dedicated to myself because I was filling it with all these other people.

I actually started taking Thursday night, my partner and I were like, "Let's do our own things that night." I would sometimes go and get a drink by myself or get sushi by myself. Some Thursdays, I would hang out with friends. It wasn't always on my own, but I did make sure to have that in the mix so I wasn't neglecting myself and not having that time.

Jase: How about you, Yue?

Yue: It's just striking that nice balance of leading with your own interests first. I think this last time dating after coming out of a five-year relationship that ended due to infidelity, I had to rethink everything about relationships. What am I looking for? What is that balance I want? I realized I needed to dedicate more time to foster my own interests and my hobbies. Now, I'm with a partner who doesn't only allow me the space and time to do that, but he empowers me to do that. That's been something I never looked for in a relationship before.

Before, I just fell into relationships and ended up spending all weekend with this person because that's what you do in a relationship. Then you end up spending holidays with this person. You ended up moving in with this person. It was never intentional. Now, it's like when we have this intentional part-time apart, our time together becomes more intentional, too.

Dedeker: I'm curious to know what the two of you would think about something Esther Perel said on a relatively recent episode of her show around dating. She gave a lot of caveats, basically explaining-- I think this is controversial. I don't think everyone's going to get on board with this, but Perel was saying that her idea of a great way to do a first date with somebody is, don't take them out to dinner. Don't take them out to-- go for a walk in some place that you don't normally go for a walk.

She said, and it sounds similar to what you're getting at, Yue. See about inviting them into your life as it already exists. If you already are like, "Oh, wow, my favorite band is in town, I want to go anyway, and I will go by myself." This gives me an opportunity to be like, "Hey, you want to come see this band with me?" Great. I'm going to go to my regular workout class. "Hey, you want to join me for this workout class?" This idea that it's more of trying someone on in the actual context of your interests and your life.

I can also see how some people might feel like, I don't know, that could be a little bit weird. Maybe I don't feel safe enough to invite somebody just into my life as it is. What do the two of you think about that?

Julie: I love it, because I feel like dating right now, that's how we're measuring a partner, but it's actually not a good measurement at all. It's, of course, fun to have cocktails and talk about travel for an hour of your life, but how are you measuring if this is like your long-term life partner? It's very difficult in that context, so I love this idea of bringing someone into your life a little more and not having this date front that people have trouble moving past, too, because it's like the date self showing up, not your real self.

The only thing I'm thinking of is we had an episode on our podcast years ago where one person--

Yue: Yes.

Julie: You know that I'm thinking of, Yue?

Yue: Yes.

Julie: She would bring her date, like grocery shopping with her, like basically on her chores because she was trying to multitask. I think that's where it becomes not ideal, so I loved what you said about, "Oh, there's a band I want to see," that's fun. That's a date. Although I don't know is a show like the best first date because you're not actually talking to them, but stuff like that. Maybe it's like a combo of how do you bring someone into your life, but also, still make it feel like you're trying to connect to them and not just bringing them along.

Yue: I totally get what she's saying, and I think there's a different way of saying it, I'll give this example first. At one of our book events recently, this guy stayed after and asked the question. I heard that you shouldn't do dinner dates as a first date because you're face-to-face with them is too much eye contact. It's overwhelming, so I heard a walking date is better, so you're side by side and your eye contact is forward, not at each other. What do you think?

Jase: I've heard this before, too. Yes.

Yue: Have you heard that?

Emily: Interesting.

Jase: I've heard this one, yes.

Yue: My answer to him was, "What do you want to do? Do you enjoy dinners? Do you enjoy walking dates? Do you enjoy an activity date, or do you enjoy a sitting-and-talking date?" Lead with what you actually enjoy doing. If there's a restaurant you've been meaning to check out, who cares if you're making too much eye contact?

You get to eat at a place that you wanted to anyway, but if you're reluctantly going on a walking date when you don't walk normally, and you couldn't care less about the neighborhood you're walking in, that's not going to gauge whether you're compatible. That's actually just going to put you in a more resentful place.

Jase: Yes, I love that. I think that the common thread with both of you is getting to the heart of being intentional.

Julie: Yes.

Jase: If you are bringing them along to something you're already doing as a way to maximize your time, that's not being intentional about the date, right? Or if you're doing a type of date because you heard scientifically it's the right date to do. Like, "Oh, I heard that going on a rollercoaster is good for making someone fall in love with you. Her heart rate goes up or something," and you hate rollercoasters. That's not going to be fun for anybody.

?Julie: No.

Jase: Now, if you love rollercoasters, that could be a good test to make sure they also like rollercoasters if that matters to you.

Julie: I think that's what we've learned from the podcast, which sounds so counter, as I know, "dating experts". We've actually realized you don't need to get good at dating the way it is today, because everything feels so contrived. Everything feels like there's a formula you must follow, and there's so much dating advice out there that is contradictory at times, and all very generic, also. How do you know what actually applies to you? That really, at the core of like the whole book that we just wrote and everything we do, it's like, how do you design the love life that works for you? How do you do it your way?

Because ultimately, that's when you're going to find the right partner, too, when you're not holding back yourself, because someone told you on TikTok, like, you're not supposed to sit across from someone at a restaurant.

Emily: Do you feel like there is a piece of conventional dating advice that you once more ascribed to and now you're like, "This is bullshit. I am not into this anymore," and what changed your mind over time?

Yue: Oh, all the dating advice I've had maybe. Seriously, I grew up reading Cosmo, and if you open up any Cosmo--

Emily: Didn't we all?

Yue: All the dating advice wasn't about you. It was about how to please the man, how to make him fall in love with you, how to give him the best blow job, how to be a siren in the bedroom. It was never about you at the forefront, and we find this message to be missing, and we want it to be heard loud and clear because the only person who's consistent in your life is you. You could go through multiple relationships, relationships are not guaranteed. The future's not guaranteed, so take care of yourself.

Julie: In dating, everyone gets so hung up on text messaging, right? Like texting, and what should I do? I think a pivotal point for me was, I used to subscribe to this belief of I needed to hold back. Let the man lead in a--

Dedeker: Oh, yes, no double text.

Julie: Yes, no double. That's like the cardinal sin, or even texting first, especially in a hetero relationship. It's like, "Let him lead, let him do all the stuff. Don't show your interest." For me, I was like, "That is the worst advice," because I want someone, I can just text whenever I want to. I love to text people. Why would I want to hold that back with someone? I remember going on this great date with a guy and talking to a friend of mine who was married, and him being like, "So you're going to send him a text and tell him how good a time you had?"

I was like, "I would never do that." How can he even suggest something like that? This guy knows nothing about dating, and then the joke was on me, because actually, he got into a committed relationship and knows how to connect to someone. That was like a huge wake up call for me that I was like, "Why am I playing by these games that aren't even authentic to who I am?"

Jase: Yes. I love that. I think that's a great one to catch onto, because there's also that other side of it of, like say, it does work, and I can do this thing to get a person to like me more. It's like, well, cool, you just got someone who liked you because you did that thing. That's not a very authentic relationship right there. Coming back to the topic of your book, one of the things that you talk about in there is your dating archetype or your dating personality. On your site, dateablepodcast.com, you have a little quiz that you can take.

I took that, and then I also made Dedeker and Emily take it while we were preparing for this episode. Let me start by telling you that I apparently am a thinker and a dreamer, that those are that thinker is the one that I am the strongest in, and dreamer is my second highest. Dedeker and Emily, you want to share yours first, and then we'll have Yue and Julie psychoanalyze us based on that.

Emily: Perfect. Go for it, Dedeker.

Dedeker: Oh, yes. I'm a solid maverick, through and through.

Julie: Love it.

Dedeker: No real competition with anything else.

Emily: I'm a dreamer and a maverick, which is interesting that I'm in the middle of the two of you to a degree.

Jase: You're right.

Emily: Yes. I know. Fascinating.

Dedeker: What does it mean?

Jase: Tell us our horoscopes.

Dedeker: Oh, man.

Emily: Damn it.

Julie: No, you're all dateable. I think it actually goes back to what we were talking about earlier, about like nothing is personalized, everything is generic. It's really about how do you date your way, so that's why we wanted to do this quiz in the first place. It actually is at the forefront of our book, and throughout the book, you use your quiz results, too, to really personalize the whole book experience. The thought, too, is okay, everyone's already dateable. We're not telling anyone they need to change who they are as a person. We fundamentally believe that.

Everyone has their core strengths of what they bring to dating in a relationship and then the things that might be holding them back. That's what the idea of this archetypes quiz is to understand what might be getting in your way, and then what are your superpowers that can really let you shine if you lean into them a bit more.

Yue: They're no good or bad, but I see you mavericks out there, Dedeker, Emily.

Dedeker: That is feeling, that is feeling.

Yue: That is me through and through, and what's great about us mavericks is that we are uber independent. We have a strong sense of self, we have a strong sense of independence, but there's also this sense, what could be getting in our way is, sometimes we have a hard time letting people in or showing our vulnerability or to show the authentic sides of us because sometimes we feel the pressure to present ourselves in a certain way. Like that strong, independent person. One thing that we talk about in the book for a lot of mavericks is how do you just open yourself up a little bit more and be vulnerable on a date?

Jase: Yes. Dedeker is already like, "Nope. No, I'm not."

Dedeker: Earlier today, we recorded an episode about attachment style, where we also did a little quiz, and of course, I'm avoidant attached, so I'm just like already today sick of being attacked for who I am, that's all

Emily: I find this really interesting, because I feel like my outward veneer, especially when I meet someone, is more that of the maverick.

Yue: Yes.

Emily: I put on this very poised self but then once you get to know me, I'm so much a dreamer, like, "Oh my gosh. Let's hang out all the time and move in together," and so that's very interesting. Whereas Dedeker, it takes like years for you to get to that point.

Dedeker: My second one was a thinker. The second one is thinker.

Julie: Dedeker, to what you said, like there is a lot of positives of this, too. I think that's the real difference with attachment theory that-- I don't know. I have some gripes on attachment theory, to be honest. I talk about those--

Jase: We can talk about those.

Dedeker: It's okay. You might have them.

Julie: I think it's helpful in many ways, don't get me wrong, but I don't love that it paints people as below, I guess. I've had two friends, at 2:00 in the morning at a party, being, "Are we screwed? Because we're fearful avoidant?" I'm like, "Really? This is what we're talking about right now?" I hate that part of it, but I do love that it gives you insight. For this, though, in theory, you could be a maverick and be anxious or a maverick and secure. It's not 100% correlated, but there obviously are some high-level characteristics of just being more independent and self-sufficient and all that, that could correlate.

Emily: How about Jase?

Julie: The dreamer and the thinker. I'm a dreamer through and through. I'm actually a dreamer achiever combo, but the dreamer this person is, I love what you were saying, Emily. It's like, "Once I'm in, I'm in." I'm thinking about my future with someone, I'm imagining the fairy tale, all of that. I am living in the fantasy a bit. The benefits of a dreamer is there's so much love to give, especially to the right partner. You can be an incredibly caring and positive force in someone's life. The downside is you can't get ahead of yourself and funnel energy into the wrong people that aren't necessarily deserving.

Emily: Damn it.

Jase: I think you know

Julie: You're like, I feel it.

Emily: Whoops, did that. Yes. For many, many years.

Julie: For me, as the dreamer-achiever, you can see how that could be a dangerous combo because the achiever knows what they want. They're not afraid to go after it, but they are really focused on the milestone and moving the relationship along. I was the queen of situationships for years because I got ahead of myself. I hung on to that really great first date and not all the subsequent treatment that came after it. I was determined to make it work, even though I should have been like, "This is not the right relationship. I'm going to let it go."

When I finally did that, it was a game-changer because then I could really leverage all the benefits of a dreamer and bring them into the right relationship.

Yue: Then the thinker.

Julie: Thinker, we haven't forgot about you.

Yue: We have a lot of thinkers, and benign thinkers too. They have the thinker underneath, and it pops out every once in a while. The thinker, what draws people to thinkers is, thinkers have fresh perspective because they're always learning. There's just this thirst for curiosity. Thinkers find themselves getting themselves into really deep conversations on dates because they love talking about life and just what they've absorbed. What may be getting into in a thinker's way is this analysis paralysis.

It's almost too much information, and the guy who asked, "Do you go on a walking date, or do you go on a dinner date?" That's a typical thinker because they get out of their head, because now, they're living in the information that they've learned, and they're not in their body.

Dedeker: What was relatively low across the board for all three of us, and the one we haven't talked about yet was the energizer archetype.

Julie: That's interesting.

?Dedeker: Which is super interesting.

Jase: Emily was the most energizer of the three of us.

Emily: I was the most energetic, which makes sense to me.

Jase: I was very low. I was like 2 out of 12 for myself and Dedeker.

Emily: Mine was 6.

Jase: Only 6 out of 12 for Emily. Pretty low for all of us.

Julie: Also, to note these can change depending on life stage, or maybe you're never an energizer or never a thinker or whatever. For me, I know I was an energizer when I first started dating, when I was going on those triple book dates in a night, that was energizer behavior that thinks that dating is a numbers game. Again, brings such great energy and this adventurous spirit, and always finding good date spots and places to go. A lot of great qualities. Usually, you have a killer first date with an energizer.

The challenge with the energizer, though, again, is letting people go beyond that surface level if you're always onto the next, and it's impossible to book a date with you. We've seen energizers meet someone they really like, and they're like, "I'm free in three weeks." It's by then it's over.

Jase: I could see an energizer maverick being a challenging combination then, because it's you show up great on a first date and it's all about these surface-level appearances, and it's hard to get past that to anything squishy underneath.

Yue: A maverick energizer would probably think they're too picky, right? If you're like, "Oh, why aren't you-- Why are you single? Why haven't you found anybody?" "Oh, I'm too picky." Because they probably write people off very quickly. It's really to protect themselves from getting hurt.

Julie: The thing is, though, with all of these, there's no, again, no good or bad, and one combo that's worse than the other. It's really just becoming aware. If you were that person, the energizer maverick, you could be like, "I know I have a tendency to maybe think I'm too picky, and how can I adjust this? How can I start to really look at what matters and slow myself down and give people more of that chance?" It's really using the information to shape how you are only hurting yourself in this process, because we hear all the time, dating is so hard, it's so challenging.

A lot of times, if we change our mindset and our approach even so slightly that we're not changing who we are, but just the way we're showing up, that makes a huge difference.

Jase: I was definitely thinking about that as we were talking about all of these, how they've changed a lot for me. Actually, one that I would have probably been much higher on the achiever measure before. That's something that, I think, one, having achieved the status of getting engaged and almost getting married, and that not working out long ago, back in my 20s, I think that had an impact.

Then also, through doing this show and learning about things like Amy Gahran's Stepping Off the Relationship Escalator, if you're familiar with that book, but getting away from this default idea that the only way a relationship can deepen is by hitting these milestones, and that the only direction you can go is up. You couldn't ever decide to live apart, but still be just as close. Those aren't options. I think between those things, it's made achiever much, much lower for me. Mine was a 2 out of 12.

I actually see that of the three of us, Dedecker's a 3 and Emily's also a 2 on that one. That's actually our lowest collectively between the three of us, which is interesting.

Dedeker: People who are achievement junkies in all other areas of life, it is surprising.

Yue: I would go out on a limb and say that I would guess that monogamous daters have higher achievers, more achievers, who are monogamous than non-monogamous, because I find that in monogamous dating, there is this one timeline that you have to follow. You have to hit these milestones. With non-monogamous dating, you get to you get to DIY your timelines. I think that's one of the beauties of non-monogamous dating is that you don't have to be part of someone else's timeline structure.

Julie: I'm an achiever through and through. If anything, it's only become more apparent once I got into a serious relationship. I think if anything, my dreamer tendencies went down. With Yue, I feel like you used to be an achiever. Really, how do I get to that next date, or what does it mean when I'm six months in with someone? You really dropped all of that. I do think that different life experiences, like you were saying, Jase, around like, "I had this, I realized that wasn't the only way, and I'm now focused on staying present and having each experience be what it's meant to be."

I see a lot of commonalities with Yue and your experience, too. I think regardless if you're monogamous or not, a lot of it's your life experiences, or maybe there's an area that you're just never going to change. That's okay, too. For me, it was how do I just lean into this and not let it totally derail my relationship.

Dedeker: Do the two of you get listeners who write into the show complaining about the proliferation of non-monogamous people on dating apps these days?

Julie: Yes.

Dedeker: Yes, I too.

Julie: I think it's just that people don't know where people stand anymore. You can't just assume-

Dedeker: Totally. You can't assume.

Julie: -that everyone wants what you want. It might not even be non-monogamous. We've heard of people are like, "Oh, they just want to hook up, and they don't want a relationship." I do think there is this feeling of like, "Oh, it's not what I'm looking for. Therefore, it's confusing and it's-- I don't know, just maybe not the clarity that I wanted."

Jase: It is funny the amount of complaints on both sides of that, too, where it's like, "It's so hard to find anyone because everyone I meet is they're monogamous or they're already in this committed relationship." Then, of course, I hear that other complaint of like, "Oh, it's impossible to find anyone who really wants to date because everyone's polyamorous now." It's like it is funny how we can get frustrated and see that thing that's the one that frustrates us.

Yue: We've had a few friends tell us that they really enjoyed using Feeld as monogamous daters because people are more upfront with that what they're looking for. We actually had one girlfriend who went through this whole sexual exploration. She's like, "Feeld is the one place where I feel like I can openly communicate to anybody and say whatever I want."

Dedeker: Which is so-- I'm not surprised by Feeld being a place where that sort of behavior takes place. I'm more surprised that that is not yet more normalized on other dating apps. That explicitly upfront about really what you're looking for.

Julie: I think that's the other problem, too, is because they aren't segmented like field is, people are hesitant to say the wrong answer. Like in behavioral science, it's only what people say only means so much because if they say, "I don't want a relationship," then there's this feeling of like, am I going to be judged because I don't want one?

If I say that, will the person not want to see me? If I'm upfront that I'm just looking to hook up, is that going to scare people away? People just say what they think you want to hear, and it doesn't really actually help with those types of questions.

Jase: Yes, absolutely.

Emily: Can we talk a little bit about the apps? I have not been on them in so many years. Last year, right before I moved to New York, I got out of a nine-year semi monogamous relationship. For a little while, it was non-monogamous, and then it became monogamous, and now I'm back doing a form of non-monogamy. I have a partner right now, but I did have two partners for a little while. I am curious about the potential of going on the apps, but the last time I was on them was in 2014, which was 10,000 years ago.

I think OkCupid was only a desktop version. Doing any app stuff just seems really daunting. I have to say I've found people to date organically. It almost seems a little inorganic for me to start going on apps, but I also think it might open up and broaden my horizons for potential people to date. I don't know. Is it just a bad idea, or is it the way that most people now do dating, I guess? Yes.

Yue: You're speaking what so many daters are feeling right now is this dating app burnout. My question back to you is, let's say there was a neighborhood bar that you went to a long time ago, where the bartender would introduce you to every single person that walked in the door, and--

Emily: I'm just dating the bartender now, actually.

Yue: There you go. Then date the bartender.

Julie: Problem solved.

Yue: End of story.

Emily: Besides that, if I were to date other people, which I might, yes.

Yue: Let's say the success rate was pretty low, but you had a good time meeting all these random single people. You haven't been to that bar in a while, and you're curious what it's all about. Would you still have the same analysis paralysis about going back to that bar, or would you just go back to the bar? Just check it out, see who's there.

Emily: I think I probably would just go back and see who's there. For sure, I think it would be interesting. I can imagine just because there are so many different apps now, there are so many different specific things to get into that are very specific for like, "Okay, this is the app where you go to hookup. This is the app where if you're kinky and non-monogamous, go there. This is the app, I guess, if you're looking for more of a long-term relationship, go here," but then playing the field amongst all of those seems really scary and daunting as well.

Jase: Part of the question would be, do you think that's true? Are the apps actually segmented like that?

Julie: I was going to say first--

Emily: That's my sense of it, but maybe not.

Julie: I think that things have changed a lot since 2014, but they also haven't-

Emily: Indeed.

Julie: -in many ways. Which is the irony with dating apps is, OkCupid used to be a desktop, and now it's on an app, but they just basically copied Tinder, and it's a swipe mechanism. I personally feel like the apps are ripe for innovation. The fact that there hasn't been major improvements in over 10 years is wild when you think about it, but that's an aside.

Emily: It's coming in.

Julie: Maybe it's actually not as daunting as you're thinking because it hasn't changed that much. To the point around segmentation, there have been a lot more that have come on the scene, especially I think for folks that are having more alternative arrangements that I think that's actually a beautiful thing like field we are talking about that there's apps that will cater to people that have more non-traditional arrangements and ways of doing relationships.

I think the same premise though, whether you're monogamous or non-monogamous or whatever you're looking for, find just one that works for you. There's no need to be on every single app. You're going to burn yourself out at the end of the day. When people are always like, "What's the best app?" I'm always like, "Okay, let's go back to three."

We're going to go three is the magic number from our convo earlier. Anything more than three is going to burn you out. Try three apps for a month and see which ones you enjoy going to, which ones you're gravitated towards more, and then dial it down just to that one. You're just not dreading it or thinking it's the worst, or you're starting to see results, then stick with that. I'm extremely pro-app. I met two partners on an app, including my fiance now. I would-

Emily: Wow.

Julie: -never trade that because we would not have met. We always hear people say like, 'Should I be on apps or should I meet people in real life?" Our answer is like, "It doesn't need to be an either-or. Just go on the apps, and go meet people in real life." You don't have to be on the apps every single day, either. Before I met my partner, I went on once a week.

I was like, "Sunday night is my night. I want to uninstall all the notifications because I don't want to get pulled in." I'm actually a former app designer so I know all the tricks that they're doing, and they're trying to keep your retention up. I'm like, "I'm going to go anti to all of this," and we talk about this in the book, too.

I'm going to make apps work for me. I'm going to use it Sunday nights, and that's when the most people are on apps anyways. That's when I'm usually doing nothing. Then outside of Sunday, I'm going to live my life and try to meet up with at least one person I talk to on Sunday in the week so it doesn't become a pen pal arrangement that I never see them.

Dedeker: That is a good segue because I want to bring it back to what you were saying, Yue, earlier about comparing the app to just like your neighborhood bar that you used to go to, where the bartender introduced you to everybody. I think what I'm gathering from that is this idea that we can look at dating or at getting on the apps as though we're taking on a whole new part-time job.

Some people could definitely treat it that way as far as their time investment and emotional investment, but it sounds like the point you're trying to make is that it really doesn't have to be like that. You can dip your toes in and just see what's there and then never look at the app again if you really don't want to. Am I tracking that correctly?

Yue: Yes. Thank you for bringing it full circle. I think the point is, apps are just a tool and it's a privilege that we get to use. It was so profound for us because we had our book tour last month and we had an audience one day that was nobody under 65, and then there's an audience the other day where I spoke to college freshmen, they were 18 to 20.

For the older crowd, one guy came up after was like, "How do I get the apps on a desktop because I can't type on a phone and I can type better on a desktop?" Here's a man who's like, "How do I use this tool?" Then for the college freshmen I spoke to, I said, "Raise your hand if you're on the apps right now." Nobody raised their hand. Zero.

Emily: Wow.

Dedeker: Really?

Emily: Really?

Yue: They were all so curious, and what felt like organic connection was more important than using the apps. The point here is, it is something we get to do. It's a tool we get to use. If you see the neighborhood bar as a place you get to go to to meet new people, it becomes this privilege that you get to exercise. How great of a tool that is?

If you see it as a nuisance or it's a burden or it's a job, then of ,course it becomes something that it's a checklist and you don't want to do it anymore. To both of the age groups that we spoke to, it was like, "Yes, learn how to use the tool because it's available for you, but also learn that it's just a tool, it's there to help you, and find that balance that we all so desperately need right now."

Dedeker: That's very well said.

Julie: I think we also think that apps are like the silver bullet and they're designed to give us our soulmates, like hand-select them for us instead of just looking at it as an intro. We see people getting so mad at apps if they're not getting the right matches, but if we go back to the bar analogy, would you ever get angry at the bar if you went there and didn't meet good people? You'd be like, "I'm never coming here again." You would never do that.

I think the expectation of apps is wildly off. Some of the traps that we think that people are falling for, one of them is this notion of expectation of love on demand. That we live in this world where everything happens instantaneously, and we think that we can order our soulmate like something on Amazon. If we go into apps with that expectation, it's never going to work out.

Dedeker: Julie, you were talking about how when you were on the apps, it seemed like you wanted to very carefully engineer how you interacted with it in the sense of turning off the notifications, being very clear about when you would use it, and when you would not use it. I think that's the thing that has to be in place so that it actually stays feeling like your neighborhood bar. Otherwise, the bartender isn't coming into your house and popping up in your face every five minutes.

Julie: Right, and giving you shots.

Dedeker: He'll be like, "Here's another one, here's another one, here's another one, here's another one." You're not showing up to the whole block full of neighborhood bars and just hopping back and forth between all of them anytime you have downtime in between work meetings or whatever. It sounds like there's also something on the side of the user of needing to contain that experience so it's not just a mindless, addictive relationship with a piece of software rather than connecting to people.

Julie: Right. The way the apps are designed, you're getting reinforcement every time you match with someone. It's equated to casino and getting that dopamine hit every time you get a match. You also have to take yourself out and be like, "What am I doing by accumulating all these matches? I need to talk to these people that are in my queue."

I know for years, I would do that. Bumble actually did not work for me at all for an app because what would happen is I would swipe on everyone, I'd get into swipe mode, and then I'm like, "Oh, well, I have to be the one that initiates." They've now rolled that back. Back in the day, women had to be the one that initiated. I just wouldn't. I'd be like, "Well, I'll do it later."

They had this thing that they expired after two days or something, and then I'd go back, and I'm back to square one accumulating. I was in a cycle, and I'm like, "This is not healthy. It's not doing anything. There's no point here." It's really breaking those cycles. You don't have to be this rigid. You decide what works for you.

I made a rule for myself last time I was dating that I wouldn't go on dates on Friday or Saturday nights, first dates or second dates, because I wanted to make sure I devoted at least Friday to being with friends or people that filled my cup that I knew I would get connection from. I knew if I was on dates all weekend that were total bust, that would not be energizing to me.

I'm like, "Okay, how do I make sure that I preserve my social battery?" We talk about this a lot of like, what is your date and consumption strategy that can be sustainable, but it balances that with other parts of your life?"

Dedeker: Do the two of you have perspectives on dating where you disagree, or has there ever been a time where you disagreed on the advice that you wanted to give to a listener?

Julie: We definitely do in some places. I'm like, what is the exact example?

Yue: Yes, what is the example? It's a very good question.

Julie: I think our overall outlook is a little different. I don't want to speak for you fully, Yue, but I think I am a little more on a traditional path of getting married and moving forward with a single partner. Yue is not poly, but I think that you are more open to things not being forever.

Yue: I think it's because in my five-year relationship that was headed towards marriage and kids, I almost feel like I had it, like I've already lived that. I'm glad that I lived the traditional route, and now I'm free to explore maybe a more non-traditional route.

Julie: I don't know if that's advice, though. That's more outlook. I'm trying to think of advice.

Yue: I don't know if it's--

Dedeker: No, but that makes sense.

Yue: I don't know. Julie and I have been doing our podcast for almost 10 years, and we are finishing each other's thoughts and sentences now. It's really freaky. I think in the beginning--

Julie: We've become one mind.

Yue: We have. We actually have this joke that if we train an AI model, it will be called Yulie.

Dedeker: Oh, 10 seconds ahead of you.

Jase: Yulie, for sure.

?Dedeker: You're ready for it.

Julie: We did back in the day, though. I think we did have differing views.

Yue: We did.

Julie: Yue, you are much more focused on gender roles. I think that's something that you've dropped over the years of like, the man should pay, and they should do this and this and this. I was more like, if I'm just going to send the text, I'm going to send the text. I think there's some areas-- I don't know. I think generally our advice to people is don't overthink it. That's usually where we sit that we both agree on. If you're debating if you should go on another date or you're debating if you should reach out, just do it.

Jase: That's funny. I think that we similarly struggle sometimes where people are like, "What do we disagree on?" We've even said, "Oh, what if we did an episode where we had a topic that we could debate about it?" We do. After doing this show for over 10 years, there is that, like, "Well, yes, maybe we disagree a little bit here and there, but not in that like we have polar opposite stances on something." I get you there.

Julie: Maybe, oh, friends. Friends with an ex used to be one, but I think I actually maybe turned the corner a little more on this.

Dedeker: I want to hear more.

Jase: Yes, what's that?

Emily: Meaning, no, don't do that?

Dedeker: Or yes, do it?

Yue: I mentally murder my exes, just like, gone.

Emily: Wow.

Yue: I wipe them from the universe, and I don't believe it--

Emily: Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind, pretty much.

Yue: RIP all of the exes. I just block them on everything.

Julie: I was under the camp of like, well, if I really cared about this person at one point, I still want to maintain a relationship with them or a friendship. I think for me, it worked in some instances when I talked to them very infrequently, but then I think sometimes I was holding onto people because of that. I'm not sure if I've gone to mentally murdering my exes. Maybe we're still a little different there.

Yue: No crimes yet.

Julie: I don't talk to them frequently, that's for sure.

Jase: That's fascinating. We just did an episode about deescalating relationships and different ways that that looks, where we did talk about that, that you can fall on one side or the other, and either way can be a problem. A lot of times, people will do that whole, like, "It's a call to break up because it's broken, we're never going to speak to them again." Partly because it doesn't feel like there are any other real options.

Then on the other hand, you can have the people who feel like, oh, it always has to be mutual. It always has to be, "We have to stay friends. Otherwise, I'm doing a bad job. I'm not an involved enough person." That also doesn't serve us. As a fun example, Emily and I are exes.

Dedeker: Oh, okay. Love it.

Jase: From 10 years.

Dedeker: That is fun.

Jase: No, 11. Wait, sorry. Nine years ago?

Emily: Technically, 2015 is when we broke up, early 2015.

Dedeker: 10 years, wow.

Jase: Coming on 10 years. We should have a 10-year anniversary.

Emily: Of our breakup, yes.

Julie: You should go for a romantic dinner.

Emily: Well, the three of us even were romantically involved for a time as well in more of a triad situation. It was definitely less--

Dedeker: It was a quad that turned into a triad and then multiple nesting triads. Those were our salad days of early non-monogamy journeys where you're just like, "Wait, talk about Energizer." You're just--

Dedeker: everybody all the time, all at the same time. It gets tangled up really quick.

Emily: I lived with Jase. We lived together and were monogamous partners before we opened up and met Dedeker and started our non-monogamous journey. The moral of that story is, 520 episodes later, here we are. That's the thing, I think that that's very not normal, and most people hear that and are just shocked by that.

I will say that these are the two exes in my life that have been the most positive, I think, in terms of getting to stay friends with an ex after the fact. It's not for everyone, I can understand that. I certainly have exes that I never want to see again.

Jase: Exactly. It's not for everyone. It's not for every ex.

Dedeker: I’m committing several mental crimes.

Julie: That's the crux of it is, how did it end? We have heard from non-monogamous people that we're like, "I don't get it." Why is it a big deal to still not cut this person off, to see them? That probably is really the core is like, how did it end? Is this person bringing value to your life in this new form of a relationship?

Yue: It brings up this really good point of, we just don't know how to exit relationships well. We know how to get into them, this is what we focus on. There is a better way to exit out of relationships where you can stay in each other's lives in a respectful, cordial way.

I think I've gotten to a point where, with my current partner, I really believe because we built a strong friendship first. I've known him for eight years at this point, and we've been dating for a year. I feel like because we built this strong friendship, and I have so much respect for him as a friend, that if things didn't pan out romantically, he would absolutely be in my life.

I wouldn't murder him in any sense of the word. I just can't imagine because I respect him so much. I also know that we're so emotionally evolved in our relationship that if we were to evolve out of it, it would be in a really respectable way. It wouldn't be because of all the shitty ways that my old relationships ended, where I ended up resenting the person.

Dedeker: We're getting close to the end here, and I'm really curious to ask the two of you about heteropessimism. I feel like we're living in a time where a lot of people feel very frustrated, very hopeless, not just with dating but with the world at large. I think the classic perspective that I hear a lot of women who date men express is this idea of, there are no good men or men are trash. It's impossible to date them. This is horrible. I absolutely hate this.

Then the classic point of view that I think hetero men tend to take is this sense of, the apps are all trash. You can't find anybody. Men don't get any attention on the dating apps. It's way harder to be a man trying to date than to be a woman trying to date. While I'm sure we could have another two-hour conversation about just that alone, what's your take on that? I'm sure you field a lot of listeners who come to you who are already so frustrated and hopeless.

Yue: We sure do. The man-hating has gotten out of control from what we've seen. There's so many problems with this mentality. Biggest issue with this is that our worlds are created by what we believe. If you believe that all men suck, those are the only kind of people you're going to see, the sucky men. Our minds are not fact finders, they're just looking for evidence of what you believe in.

When people come to us and they're like, "Where are all the good men? They suck," or, "Dating sucks. There's nobody good out there," then we have these great book events where people show up and everyone's so emotionally intelligent and they want to talk about this stuff. We're like, "Why aren't you all matching?" There's a mismatch. You're all single, you're all emotionally available. Why are you not finding each other? It's because everybody still has this baseline mentality of negativity, and they only see the people who feed into that evidence.

Julie: I could not agree more. The whole time, though, when you were talking about this, Dedeker, I was just shaking my head because it's legit something that is so prevalent right now on both sides. I agree with you. It's not serving anyone. I think finding counterexamples of the types of people you want to meet is way healthier and beneficial than just complaining about all the terrible people out there.

If you meet a toxic guy and you're a hetero woman and trying to date them, then move on to someone that's not toxic. There's no need to stay in this, I guess, toxicity, furthering it by talking to your friends about how terrible they are and sending messages to people like us and all those things. It just continues to spiral.

Honestly, that's the one thing that we hope people could walk away from when they listen to our podcast or read our book, is this negativity isn't serving anyone. How do we just start, again, dating with ourselves at the forefront and doing what works for us? At that point, you let go of the people that aren't measuring up.

Jase: I love that.

Dedeker: I had this dream the other day. I've been recording my dreams when I wake up just to see what themes pop up. I didn't even tell you this, Julie. The other day, I had this dream that I was on a river and this woman was in this canoe and she kept saying, "Insidious, insidious." The entire dream, it was me chasing down what insidious means in the stream.

When I woke up in the morning and I really looked up the actual meaning of insidious, I'm like, "That is dating right now." It's this foreboding feeling. This foreboding cumulative pessimism that is about to explode. We keep reading these articles about people giving up on apps, giving up on each other, giving up on humanity, and that's not where we should be going. This is why we wrote our book, and we feel like it's so urgent right now because of this insidious foreboding feeling, this path that we're all on.

Julie: It's funny, too. I'm thinking about how we started this convo, and I was telling you about my bad dating behavior, how I wouldn't put the person's name in my phone, and showing up like that was, I might as well have not even gone on the date at that point.

When we get into these mindsets about how dating is the worst, everyone's terrible, there's no one good out there, at that point, it's, how do I stop and look at where is the stuff coming from, and how do I get out of my own beliefs here and start seeing the good out there? Until you do that, you might as well not be dating.

Dedeker: I think that's a wonderful note to wrap things up on.

Jase: Thank you both so much. Where can our listeners find more of you and more of your work, and of course, get your book?

Dedeker: Can always go to our website, dateablepodcast.com. You can find out more about our book at howtobedateable.com.

Emily: Then on every podcast platform out there, of course.

Dedeker: We're everywhere.

Jase: Love it. Well, thank you both so much for joining us today.

Yue: Thanks for having us.

Julie: Thank you. This is a great convo.