Well, what it probably means is that you put into his head that a certain life changing situation was about to happen and waited LONG enough for him to get it in his mind that he was going to become a parent and a father. And instead of it scaring him, he got used to the idea and realized that it wasn't a bad thing.

Maybe he thinks he's more ready for parenthood than you or he thought originally. What it also means is that he thinks enough of you to not freak about being a parent with. He realized that maybe you'd be a good parent too and that at least it wasn't some random floozy that he knocked up. Point is, while he probably isn't ready for children, he's also not afraid of the prospect of having children and in some odd way, got a little bit excited about having a child. 

That's why he was disappointed. You got his mind thinking into "responsible for another little life" mode and when he found out it was for naught, the good thoughts he had evaporated.

I'm sure he's happier that you aren't, but really, that is a jacked up prank to pull. Stop it.

Can you please enroll in grown-up school? Classes are forming now! Pregnancy is immutable, staggering and life-changing. It's not something to lie about - and what you did certainly wasn't a "prank" or "joke" - it was a manipulative lie designed to illicit a reaction from your boyfriend. You said your intention was to freak him out - why would you want to do that to the person you love? Why would it give you the giggles? None of us is laughing with you. 

NO! Someone really had to ask this? I mean, come on! A baby is no more relationship glue than it is a fashion accessory. Ask any gal who has been left holding the baby.

Please don't breed until you grow up.

Again, what's with the lying about pregnancy thing? Do you girls think even one step past your immediate desperation and consider how this is going to play out? So you lie that you're pregnant and he stays with you - do you then purchase a pillow to stick under your shirt, adding a little stuffing each month? Bribe an ultrasound tech? Do you tell you BF you lost the baby, convinced that by then he'll be so in love with you that he'll stick with you? Do you think this will ever, possibly, in a million years lead to a healthy relationship? If you want to "keep" your BF, tell him that! Move with him if he agrees! No need to bring a poor, defenseless, FAKE baby into the mix.

All of them. Really, if your boyfriend doesn't want to hear your problems, and actually says this to you, it's time to get a new boyfriend.

Just remember: this is a two-way street. He may not want to talk about his problems much, but when he does, you need to be there. Just a friendly reminder to all.

I disagree. While it's wonderful to feel you can tell your boyfriend anything and everything, it doesn't mean you should. That's what friends, family and therapists are for. To unburden some of our struggles so that our significant other doesn't have to carry the burden of our woes all by his lonesome. In The Happiness Project, Gretchen Rubin shares a revelation she had about "no dumping" problems on her husband: "He didn't want to spend hours pumping up my self-confidence...not only was he constitutionally less oriented to having long heart-to-heart conversations, he also tried to avoid any topic that got me upset, because he found it so painful to see me feeling blue." Rubin learns through research that the best predictor of not feeling lonely, for both men and women, is contact with other women - not other men. In other words, when you're feeling blue, you're much better hashing it out with your lady pals than your BF.  

Yeesh. As break-up lines go, that one has to be the new "It's not you, it's me." It's a backhanded compliment. "You're so awesome, I can't possibly live up to that! Which is why I'm leaving forever. Bye!" It's not the worst way to break up with someone, but it's dishonest. What they need to say is, "You should be with someone who wants to be with you" or "I am not ready for a serious relationship" or "I want to date the 23-year-old at Starbucks with the nose ring." It's a nice thing to say, but it also messes with your head. It makes you go, "Yes, you are good enough for me!" and cling to the hope that they'll get over their neuroses and be with you when, in fact, they're just saying they no longer have feelings for you in a roundabout way. 

But you know what? You are too good for them. Any guy who would say that is basically admitting that there is something wrong with him. Either he has commitment issues, or he's lazy, or not very smart. Or he knows he's going to cheat, and he's saying you're too sweet and faithful for him. Why do you want someone who isn't good enough for you? 

My guess is that you're attracted to immature boy-men who are below your intelligence level and social stature. They are attracted to you because you're interesting and worldly, while you see potential in them and want to change them from Xbox-playing manchildren into grown-ass men. So after a while, they subconsciously realize they'll never match you in the awesome department and pull away. Or you've just met a bunch of guys who use the same break-up line. But seeing as how it's a pattern, it's probably the type of guy you're attracted to that's the problem. Don't go after guys who want a brief fling or a casual dating situation. Look for a guy who wants to get serious. And change things up. If you've been dating younger men, try someone your age or older. Seek out men who are confident, open, and a touch self-deprecating. Your goal should be to find a guy who won't suddenly clam up and pull away when things get serious.

Gal Pal says:

To me, this line is like a tell in poker. He's hinting that he's either done something wrong or plans to in the near future, without having the maturity to actually put his card on the table. Listen to Kenny Rogers on this one - know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em and know when to run.  

You definitely do NOT want to wait until the heat of the moment. For one, I don't think it's fair to either of you to let yourselves get all worked up and then say, no, we can't do this. Also, it's hard to stop a fast-moving train; you can try to pull the emergency brake, but it won't stop on a dime, if you know what I mean. (If you don't know what I mean, you're probably too young to be here anyway, so beat it.)

No, you have to let him know ahead of time that you won't be jumping into bed with him anytime soon. When you do that is tricky, though. You don't want to do it too soon (like the first date), because it's presumptuous of you to think he's already considering it, even though he is, since a guy who likes you has already pictured you naked, usually the very first time he meets you, and has probably also pictured the two of you engaged in coitus, typically the vigorous and sweaty kind that he has seen in movies where everybody moans and talks dirty and the woman has like 17 orgasms. But he will deny it and you'll be embarrassed that you even mentioned it, even though you both know he's full of shit.

I think the best time to tell him is when you sense that he is clearly moving in the direction of wanting sex. Usually a woman just knows, but if you're not sure, watch for these clues: talking about sex, roaming hands, grinding his crotch against you, pushing your head down toward his junk, dry-humping you from behind when you bend over to pick up a quarter, exposing his penis--you know, subtle things like that.

Of course, you don't say what your boundaries are, and you might be open to certain types of sexual activity short of copulation. That's your business of course--all I will say is that the more you do, the more he will want, and the harder it will be for you to say no, so proceed accordingly.

Maybe you could get a t-shirt made to wear on dates? I think the best time to mention your limits is during the shift from an activity you're OK with (him staring soulfully into your eyes) to an activity that starts to approach your boundaries for the night (he pulls out some whips and chains). If you stop the train before you know if it's even headed for your station (to use Carey's metaphor), you may appear presumptuous. But there's nothing offensive about wanting to wait - just explain that you're attracted to him but want to hold off on sex until you're more committed/serious/drunk.

Funny Guy says:

I love this question. You're stating with infallible truth that all men like large breasts and ladies that don't have them have conspired to create the myth of a "nice" butt. I assure you, nice butts are a real thing. Real, like global warming, the deficit and Charlie Sheen. Sure, butt beauty is subjective; firmness, roundness, muscle to fat ratio, ratio to hips, thigh, leg, neck etc. But make no bones about it; the butt industry is alive and pumping.

Go to any newsstand and you will be greeted with an array of butt worshiping magazines. Dozens of butt publications dedicated to two huge butt cheeks divided by a thread of thong. Need I remind you of the patron saint of ass, Sir Mix-A-Lot and his anthem to the heiny?

My sense is you have breasts you feel great about and a butt that gets the job done -- it allows for hip extension and lets you sit without breaking your coccyx. Fair enough. For you, and perhaps others, this is a lesson in "live and let live". No reason for breast girls to go to war with butt girls. Besides, there are millions of women who feel on the sidelines of both these esteemed teams. What's worse, there are some women cursed with "gifted" butts and boobs. Why make them have to decide? 

Gal Pal says:

This reminds me of an episode of "The Cosby Show" where good old Cliff Huxtable asks one of his daughters' suitors, over fried chicken, if he's a thigh man or a breast man. (If I remember correctly, the dude goes for a wing.) There's no accounting for taste - but I certainly know a lot of men who enjoy the entire bird.

That's it for this week. Thanks for playing, guys and girls!