"The problem here is a totalitarian uniformity, a cult-like mentality such that even allies are enemies if they fail to follow the Exact Party Line. " - Phyllis Chesler

Friday, December 11, 2009

Sex, Lies, & Tigers

COLE this is a go to your room day!


Well, it's kind of weird to sit here and be able to write in peace and quiet. My electricity is working properly, there are no workers making a mess of my floors, breaking walls and walking in and out. 


And so I awoke to my normal routine of feeding the fur babies and making coffee and reading emails and tweets from last night after I went to sleep. I found in my inbox  Phyllis Chesler's new post about Tiger Woods.


Now for me Tiger represents the symbol of what I encounter most of the time in my dating life. The only difference is that the men I meet aren't celebrities. Some make a decent living, while others get by financially. But none of them are rolling in the cashola like Tiger. And none of them have the intellectual understanding that it is a component of screwing around and getting the girls to go along with you on that without complaint. They just see it, wish for it themselves and have this need to avoid intimacy.


I've struggled here to articulate this very experience I find myself meeting so often. But Phyllis finally gave me the words to most of my dating experiences. Thank you Phyllis.


“We are talking about a locker-room like release of tension and a male need to sexually dominate women while avoiding any real intimacy.” and “Alas, there is nothing unusual about what Tiger has done.”


Last night on Twitter I asked my married male followers to tell me what it was about their now wives that made them want to date her and then of course marry her. I received two responses. I suppose I mostly have single male followers along with my female followers. I digress...


To summarize their answers, what I heard was that both couples met while they were young and dated for many years. Both men felt that the women accepted them despite their perceived faults and neither could see themselves without that woman. One was given the ultimatum to marry or she would leave him. 


When I tweeted back after receiving a tweet that said he never cheated on his wife, not so much as a kiss, that I know there are good men out there, I received this response, "Oh, I don't know how good I am. lol I just never could imagine doin' something like that to someone I love so much."

Here is the comment I left on Phyllis's Post today:

I’m dumbfounded by your last sentence. Was that meant to be cheeky? Snarky?


However regarding your statements: “We are talking about a locker-room like release of tension and a male need to sexually dominate women while avoiding any real intimacy.” and “Alas, there is nothing unusual about what Tiger has done.”- as a single middle aged woman I can say you hit the nail on the head, gave the perfect words to what I encounter in the dating world.


This is fairly common with men. The only problems with this behavior is when women do not understand this or are purposely manipulated mentally and emotionally to believe this is not what is being presented to them from the men. It takes the consenting out of the situation.


I personally abhor this about single men and can smell their line of crap within 3 minutes of a 1st date. If I decide to give in to the game, for me it is being done with full knowledge and empowerment. They have won no conquest. To Kate – I do it for myself and because of THAT it IS liberating, not to prove anything to anyone.


Yes, I realize I am unique in this.

1 comment:

T said...

My friend, Lauren, asked me if I would post my comments. So here goes -

Re. Phyllis Chesler's article:

1. "...locker-room like release of tension..."

Is this a Phyllis Chesler euphemism for masturbation? If it is, I am not sure Phyllis has ever been in a men's locker-room. Having been in locker-rooms throughout my life, this would never be tolerated. The offender would have been immediately bodily ejected.

2. (Pg. 2 at top) "All women — indeed, even our precious little girls — exist for One. Thing. Only."

This has me mystified. Does Phyllis mean that all women are for sexual exploitation, vessels for ejaculation, or some other meaning that escapes me?


These two areas of Phyllis Chesler's article gave me the feeling that she sees the sexual interactions of men and women through a jaundiced eye.

---

Re. my own experience:

Maybe the men I know have higher morals or maybe it's me.

Women, married or not, will often unabashedly flirt. It seems that temptations have always been front and center. Then it becomes a test as to what to do and remain polite. If that doesn't work, you become impolite, forceful, and say NO. If you just listen to your desires, you will do stupid things that will never go away. A man's penis can always get him in trouble.

Parents, fathers especially, affect how sons and daughters see themselves. Expectations, like water, seek the lowest level. If a father just 'winks and nods' at his son's sexual indiscretions, the son will grow up treating women with disdain. If a mother thinks that teenage birth control is the answer to parenting, the daughter will have a cheapened outlook towards the value and importance of the gift of sexual intimacy.

I know that some of my ideas may require explaining, but let me end with the following.

My 2 sisters, my brother, and I grew up with an unwritten code of conduct. This was passed on from parents, family, church, school, and community. We were expected to act a certain way. We were expected to treat people and property with respect. My bother and I were expected to be respectful of women.

When I developed an interest in girls, my father told me that boys and men who discuss their girlfriends and wives in the locker-room are braggarts and liars. Not only do they demean their girlfriends and wives, but they also debase themselves. Experience has proven his words true.