Ask Sophia! has had a revamp.
Please go to http://www.sophiaabella.blogspot.com
Thank you for your continued support!
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
Should not be "should wives/gf's" allow their men to watch porn
"Wives have the right to forbid their husbands to watch pornography!"
Or so says Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, an American-based relationship expert who is hailed as one of the world's best authorities on the topics of love, sex and marriage. According to his controversial advice, women shouldn't be shy to "police" their men when it comes to the sexually-charged issue of watching pornography. Really?
Yep, Boteach says porn portrays women "as the libidinous man's plaything, not an equal to be respected but a subordinate to be used" and that this causes all sorts of problems in relationships … and should be stopped pronto.
Advertisement: Story continues below
But is porn really causing marital strife? Are men really losing interest in their women thanks to their penchant for downloading airbrushed images off the internet while their wives or girlfriends wait patiently in the connubial bed? And surely if women attempt to "police" their men, they'd encourage them to want to act out even more so?
"Women must wake up to the fact that they do have a right to nip this behaviour in the bud," says Boteach. "Pornography is destructive not only because it is insulting to one's wife, but because it takes one's erotic focus away from one's spouse. In this respect, the principal harm it inflicts is not radically different from adultery."
Hmm. (So women can't watch porn on their own either? Probably not if Boteach had his way.)
When I ask a bunch of women how they feel about their boyfriends watching porn, the answers I hear are mightily mixed. Some tell me they know it's normal, that they accept their partner is into it and that they would never even bother doing anything about it.
"As long as it's not every day," one said, "then I don't see anything wrong with it."
Others admitted they were shocked to find their blokes' stash and admitted they thought differently about their guys afterwards.
Says Jackie: "As far as I'm concerned, an interest in porn is a deal-breaker. So is any guy who can't control his own impulses. Been there done that! Never again … "
The male ask readers have slightly differing views. But there's a fine line between whether a man is using it as "rejuvenation and sexual voyeurism to inspire a desire in his wife, or whether he's using it to escape from her".
He says that if it's as an escape route, obviously there's a problem.
Luke says that Boteach has it all wrong. "If women ban porn as part of their policing then they can't wonder why their husband goes out and has an affair."
But Donnie concurs with Boteach's sentiment. He surmises that there should indeed be a place for such "policing" because porn is a drug.
He writes: "Porn is addictive for some, recreational for others and comes with possible side effects. Satisfaction from porn depends on the user and their reasons for the use. Yes, 'policing' MAY be required for certain men and I would encourage women to do it."
Are women to blame for men increasingly watching porn?
Policing sounds like a rather incorrect word when you mention it in the same sentence as "porn". And how would you implement such policing anyway? Either way, Shaun reckons he has a solution.
"I would take a huge bet that 99 per cent of those guys would have rather preferred to be sexual with their partners. However, the girl was most likely not interested in being with them at that point in time. Hence their need for self satisfaction. Hence if a girl is open to the guy's sexual needs and doesn't push him away – he will most likely not even bother watching it."
My male friend reckons that it's a big cop-out to blame a man's addiction to porn on the woman. "It's got nothing to do with a woman's lack of sexual activity," he tells me. "It's not a woman's fault. A guy is either into it or not. And the problem is that once he gets into hard-core porn, there's no going back."
Does every man watch it anyway?
There was a hilarious stat last year which came out after researchers from the University of Montreal were conducting a study comparing the views of men in their 20s who had never been exposed to pornography with that of regular users.
The problem with the study was that the researchers actually couldn't find any blokes who hadn't consumed porn. Instead they found that, of the men they polled, single ones watched an average of 40 minutes three times a week, while those in relationship watched an average of 20 minutes 1.7 times a week. But here's the catch: the scientists also found that pornography didn't have a negative effect on a man's sexuality.
"Not one subject had a pathological sexuality," said head researcher associate professor Simon Louis Lajeunesse. "In fact, all of their sexual practices were quite conventional … Pornography hasn't changed their perception of women or their relationship, which they all want to be as harmonious and fulfilling as possible."
As feminist writer Naomi Wolf wrote in New York magazine: "The whole world, post-internet, did become pornographised. Young men and women are indeed being taught what sex is, how it looks, what its etiquette and expectations are, by pornographic training - and this is having a huge effect on how they interact."
Do men really get that affected by porn?
I once held a debate with a bunch of men on what constitutes "sex appeal" when it comes to women. One half of the men – the ones who never got laid at university and felt women were too hard to understand and even harder to date – viewed porn stars and strippers as the ideal girlfriend - the perfect 10. The other half - who had beautiful women falling at their feet and constantly had girlfriends - viewed pornstars and strippers as a 3 or 4 at best. I'm not exactly sure what this finding has to do with the topic, but either way I still find it fascinating the way different men view different women and what causes their fetishes to grow.
But anyway, back to the issue at hand. Sure, sometimes porn can be educational and a major turn-on. In fact sometimes it can help couples grow closer and become more sexually experimental. But sometimes men can go too far and start to watch twisted, weird stuff. And then these men will start to want the twisted, weird stuff in their relationships ... all the time. And when it gets to the point of no return, perhaps "policing" really is the only solution ...
Or so says Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, an American-based relationship expert who is hailed as one of the world's best authorities on the topics of love, sex and marriage. According to his controversial advice, women shouldn't be shy to "police" their men when it comes to the sexually-charged issue of watching pornography. Really?
Yep, Boteach says porn portrays women "as the libidinous man's plaything, not an equal to be respected but a subordinate to be used" and that this causes all sorts of problems in relationships … and should be stopped pronto.
Advertisement: Story continues below
But is porn really causing marital strife? Are men really losing interest in their women thanks to their penchant for downloading airbrushed images off the internet while their wives or girlfriends wait patiently in the connubial bed? And surely if women attempt to "police" their men, they'd encourage them to want to act out even more so?
"Women must wake up to the fact that they do have a right to nip this behaviour in the bud," says Boteach. "Pornography is destructive not only because it is insulting to one's wife, but because it takes one's erotic focus away from one's spouse. In this respect, the principal harm it inflicts is not radically different from adultery."
Hmm. (So women can't watch porn on their own either? Probably not if Boteach had his way.)
When I ask a bunch of women how they feel about their boyfriends watching porn, the answers I hear are mightily mixed. Some tell me they know it's normal, that they accept their partner is into it and that they would never even bother doing anything about it.
"As long as it's not every day," one said, "then I don't see anything wrong with it."
Others admitted they were shocked to find their blokes' stash and admitted they thought differently about their guys afterwards.
Says Jackie: "As far as I'm concerned, an interest in porn is a deal-breaker. So is any guy who can't control his own impulses. Been there done that! Never again … "
The male ask readers have slightly differing views. But there's a fine line between whether a man is using it as "rejuvenation and sexual voyeurism to inspire a desire in his wife, or whether he's using it to escape from her".
He says that if it's as an escape route, obviously there's a problem.
Luke says that Boteach has it all wrong. "If women ban porn as part of their policing then they can't wonder why their husband goes out and has an affair."
But Donnie concurs with Boteach's sentiment. He surmises that there should indeed be a place for such "policing" because porn is a drug.
He writes: "Porn is addictive for some, recreational for others and comes with possible side effects. Satisfaction from porn depends on the user and their reasons for the use. Yes, 'policing' MAY be required for certain men and I would encourage women to do it."
Are women to blame for men increasingly watching porn?
Policing sounds like a rather incorrect word when you mention it in the same sentence as "porn". And how would you implement such policing anyway? Either way, Shaun reckons he has a solution.
"I would take a huge bet that 99 per cent of those guys would have rather preferred to be sexual with their partners. However, the girl was most likely not interested in being with them at that point in time. Hence their need for self satisfaction. Hence if a girl is open to the guy's sexual needs and doesn't push him away – he will most likely not even bother watching it."
My male friend reckons that it's a big cop-out to blame a man's addiction to porn on the woman. "It's got nothing to do with a woman's lack of sexual activity," he tells me. "It's not a woman's fault. A guy is either into it or not. And the problem is that once he gets into hard-core porn, there's no going back."
Does every man watch it anyway?
There was a hilarious stat last year which came out after researchers from the University of Montreal were conducting a study comparing the views of men in their 20s who had never been exposed to pornography with that of regular users.
The problem with the study was that the researchers actually couldn't find any blokes who hadn't consumed porn. Instead they found that, of the men they polled, single ones watched an average of 40 minutes three times a week, while those in relationship watched an average of 20 minutes 1.7 times a week. But here's the catch: the scientists also found that pornography didn't have a negative effect on a man's sexuality.
"Not one subject had a pathological sexuality," said head researcher associate professor Simon Louis Lajeunesse. "In fact, all of their sexual practices were quite conventional … Pornography hasn't changed their perception of women or their relationship, which they all want to be as harmonious and fulfilling as possible."
As feminist writer Naomi Wolf wrote in New York magazine: "The whole world, post-internet, did become pornographised. Young men and women are indeed being taught what sex is, how it looks, what its etiquette and expectations are, by pornographic training - and this is having a huge effect on how they interact."
Do men really get that affected by porn?
I once held a debate with a bunch of men on what constitutes "sex appeal" when it comes to women. One half of the men – the ones who never got laid at university and felt women were too hard to understand and even harder to date – viewed porn stars and strippers as the ideal girlfriend - the perfect 10. The other half - who had beautiful women falling at their feet and constantly had girlfriends - viewed pornstars and strippers as a 3 or 4 at best. I'm not exactly sure what this finding has to do with the topic, but either way I still find it fascinating the way different men view different women and what causes their fetishes to grow.
But anyway, back to the issue at hand. Sure, sometimes porn can be educational and a major turn-on. In fact sometimes it can help couples grow closer and become more sexually experimental. But sometimes men can go too far and start to watch twisted, weird stuff. And then these men will start to want the twisted, weird stuff in their relationships ... all the time. And when it gets to the point of no return, perhaps "policing" really is the only solution ...
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Where have all the real men gone?
The other day when reading some artciles, I noticed a strange trend. Well, in our minds anyway.
You see, we couldn't work out whether the men we were watching – many of whom had shaved legs, were sporting short, slightly see-through shorts and sunglasses so large they could have rivalled Nicole Richie's – were gay or straight.
Sure, they were chatting up girls. But, really, what the heck has happened to the blokey Aussie bloke?
Advertisement: Story continues below
"We don't want shaved legs," said one of my girlfriends, pointing out those who stood in droves in front of us.
"We like hair. Maybe not so much on the chest, but definitely in the leg region. We definitely like it in the other region too. Yes, men, we like your nether regions unshaved. Otherwise it's too feminine."
Really?
"Yes, I don't mind a bit of hair in my teeth. And we like shorts that don't show their package and that cover their region."
(Apologies to all the men we encouraged on this forum to get waxed. Seriously.)
"Oh, and the sunglasses?" she ranted on. "We like to actually see your face. And my personal sentiment? Enough of the tattoos."
In short, she says the message to men should be this: "We like men hairy. We like them masculine. And we want the caveman back!"
To discover exactly where we're at in terms of the man trends (who can forget the technosexual or the retrosexual in 2007?), consulted Mark Simpson, who invented the word "metrosexual" in 1994.
Yep, the forward-thinking British journalist had seen the future of the male species when he visited an exhibition put on by GQ magazine in London in 1994.
"I'd seen the future and it was moisturised," he told me. The exhibition prompted him to coin the term in an article he penned for The Independent newspaper and suddenly the trend spread faster than the hot wax the men were using to wax their nads.
"It seemed to me that in the early '90s, male beauty came out of the closet. Man felt no more shame in his appearance."
While the concept didn't fully take off until the early noughties – "In the '90s people were in a little bit of denial about what was happening to men and why they were spending so long in the bathroom, but in the noughties it was impossible to ignore" – suddenly metrosexuals were everywhere.
Simpson pointed a well-manicured finger at metrosexual pin-up boy David Beckham, who wore a sarong, painted his nails and posed for a semi-nude photoshoot in a gay magazine.
"At the time, this kind of behaviour by a football hero was unheard of in the UK. But when he started projecting metrosexual behaviour so openly, we quickly went from denial in the '90s to metrosexual mania in the early noughties when the word was overused … and men got a bit obsessed with facials and flip flops."
Nowadays, he says, metrosexual men are pretty much the norm.
"So many things metrosexuals do have just become acceptable and hardly worthy of comment that these days it's not enough to draw attention to yourself."
Hence, these days, in order to get noticed, Simpson says some men are going one step further. He's termed the new bloke on the block the "Alphaesthete", with pin-up boys being the likes of football player Cristiano Ronaldo and comedian Russell Brand.
"Because metrosexuality is so commonplace, the new bloke manages to stand out despite that. What makes him stand out is generally the fact that he is not terribly concerned with what other people will say."
Apparently this new bloke is not just concerned about looking good and taking care of himself but he is not ashamed of being self-obsessed, pushing boundaries and ensuring that his outlandish behaviour isn't indicative of his sexuality.
"He is not worried about whether something is masculine, gay or straight; he just does what he wants. He doesn't need a product with the word 'man' in front of it – manscara or a manbag. Instead he just wears and does what makes him feel good about himself. He is cutting edge, avant-garde."
So is that what's happening to our Aussie blokes? Are they so bored of being termed metrosexuals that they've gone one step further?
Of course the dudes we saw at the Ivy Pool are a small subset of men who (we hope) aren't exactly indicative of where the entire male species is heading.
While we can applaud these sorts for being so fearless that they don't give a toss what others think (or at least they purport to be that way), when it gets to a point at which women can't work out whether they're gay, straight or somewhere in between … perhaps something needs to be done.
Perhaps, as my friend says, we need an intervention. Perhaps we need a movement. Perhaps we need to encourage blokes to bring their inner caveman back.
Either way, I think I'll start hanging out at a pub instead of a designer pool bar where sport is on TV and the only thing they're serving is beer. No designer cocktails or wet chiselled bodies (sans hair) in sight ...
STOP PRESS!!
Thanks goodness Movember is back! Men are encouraged to grow a moustache in November with the sole aim of raising vital funds and awareness for men’s health, specifically prostate cancer and depression in men. Perhaps when the Aussie men start to grow their Mos, we'll start to see the re-emergence of the caveman after all … and nothing could be sexier. Especially a dude who also does good for mankind while looking good doing it …
You see, we couldn't work out whether the men we were watching – many of whom had shaved legs, were sporting short, slightly see-through shorts and sunglasses so large they could have rivalled Nicole Richie's – were gay or straight.
Sure, they were chatting up girls. But, really, what the heck has happened to the blokey Aussie bloke?
Advertisement: Story continues below
"We don't want shaved legs," said one of my girlfriends, pointing out those who stood in droves in front of us.
"We like hair. Maybe not so much on the chest, but definitely in the leg region. We definitely like it in the other region too. Yes, men, we like your nether regions unshaved. Otherwise it's too feminine."
Really?
"Yes, I don't mind a bit of hair in my teeth. And we like shorts that don't show their package and that cover their region."
(Apologies to all the men we encouraged on this forum to get waxed. Seriously.)
"Oh, and the sunglasses?" she ranted on. "We like to actually see your face. And my personal sentiment? Enough of the tattoos."
In short, she says the message to men should be this: "We like men hairy. We like them masculine. And we want the caveman back!"
To discover exactly where we're at in terms of the man trends (who can forget the technosexual or the retrosexual in 2007?), consulted Mark Simpson, who invented the word "metrosexual" in 1994.
Yep, the forward-thinking British journalist had seen the future of the male species when he visited an exhibition put on by GQ magazine in London in 1994.
"I'd seen the future and it was moisturised," he told me. The exhibition prompted him to coin the term in an article he penned for The Independent newspaper and suddenly the trend spread faster than the hot wax the men were using to wax their nads.
"It seemed to me that in the early '90s, male beauty came out of the closet. Man felt no more shame in his appearance."
While the concept didn't fully take off until the early noughties – "In the '90s people were in a little bit of denial about what was happening to men and why they were spending so long in the bathroom, but in the noughties it was impossible to ignore" – suddenly metrosexuals were everywhere.
Simpson pointed a well-manicured finger at metrosexual pin-up boy David Beckham, who wore a sarong, painted his nails and posed for a semi-nude photoshoot in a gay magazine.
"At the time, this kind of behaviour by a football hero was unheard of in the UK. But when he started projecting metrosexual behaviour so openly, we quickly went from denial in the '90s to metrosexual mania in the early noughties when the word was overused … and men got a bit obsessed with facials and flip flops."
Nowadays, he says, metrosexual men are pretty much the norm.
"So many things metrosexuals do have just become acceptable and hardly worthy of comment that these days it's not enough to draw attention to yourself."
Hence, these days, in order to get noticed, Simpson says some men are going one step further. He's termed the new bloke on the block the "Alphaesthete", with pin-up boys being the likes of football player Cristiano Ronaldo and comedian Russell Brand.
"Because metrosexuality is so commonplace, the new bloke manages to stand out despite that. What makes him stand out is generally the fact that he is not terribly concerned with what other people will say."
Apparently this new bloke is not just concerned about looking good and taking care of himself but he is not ashamed of being self-obsessed, pushing boundaries and ensuring that his outlandish behaviour isn't indicative of his sexuality.
"He is not worried about whether something is masculine, gay or straight; he just does what he wants. He doesn't need a product with the word 'man' in front of it – manscara or a manbag. Instead he just wears and does what makes him feel good about himself. He is cutting edge, avant-garde."
So is that what's happening to our Aussie blokes? Are they so bored of being termed metrosexuals that they've gone one step further?
Of course the dudes we saw at the Ivy Pool are a small subset of men who (we hope) aren't exactly indicative of where the entire male species is heading.
While we can applaud these sorts for being so fearless that they don't give a toss what others think (or at least they purport to be that way), when it gets to a point at which women can't work out whether they're gay, straight or somewhere in between … perhaps something needs to be done.
Perhaps, as my friend says, we need an intervention. Perhaps we need a movement. Perhaps we need to encourage blokes to bring their inner caveman back.
Either way, I think I'll start hanging out at a pub instead of a designer pool bar where sport is on TV and the only thing they're serving is beer. No designer cocktails or wet chiselled bodies (sans hair) in sight ...
STOP PRESS!!
Thanks goodness Movember is back! Men are encouraged to grow a moustache in November with the sole aim of raising vital funds and awareness for men’s health, specifically prostate cancer and depression in men. Perhaps when the Aussie men start to grow their Mos, we'll start to see the re-emergence of the caveman after all … and nothing could be sexier. Especially a dude who also does good for mankind while looking good doing it …
Monday, October 18, 2010
Extramarital affairs: When sexual addiction and infidelity meet
"Sex addiction is just an excuse for celebrities who get caught."
Or so says Michelle "Bombshell" McGee, the woman who is responsible for the downfall of one of Hollywood's most revered couples: Jesse James and Sandra Bullock.
When McGee, 32, recently flew Down Under for the annual "Sexpo" event, they want to pass up an interview. And while some journalist were not exactly impressed - with sentiments ranging from, "Why is the media even giving this woman air time?" to "Why the heck would you have sex with a married man anyway?" to "Glorifying what she did only continues to show these horrible men/woman that by doing the wrong thing they will be famous for 15 minutes" - I was still intrigued.
Advertisement: Story continues below
A lot of us wanted to find out straight from the Bombshell's mouth about all the cheating/husband-stealing/infidelity topics we've long been discussing on this blog. Why did she do it? Did she have no sympathy for Bullock's feelings? Did she have no regard for the pact of sisterhood which clearly states: "Thou shalt not bonk another woman's man"? Did she regret her actions? And why the heck would any woman opt to become a "mistress"?
Well, apparently she didn't know he was in a relationship. Yep, according to the petite brunette (who is covered head to toe in tattoos), James kept his marriage to Hollywood's sweetheart entirely under wraps. Hence, she had no idea the dude was still married when she got into a year-long relationship with him and fell head over heels in love.
"I wasn't a mistress," she said. "I went to it as a single person. I didn't think I was dating a married man."
The two met on MySpace when McGee contacted James in a bid to become one of his West Coast Choppers models. When he replied to her message by giving her his private email address, the romance started to bloom. When she visited his workplace, she said the two spoke for about four hours before he made a "high school move" by putting his arm around her and giving her a kiss.
"That was when I stopped him and asked him about his relationship," she recalls. "He said he couldn't talk about it and that they were separated, didn't live together and were getting a divorce. I believed him." (It's unclear whether she realised "getting a divorce" meant he was still technically married whether he was telling the truth or not.)
She felt when she found out James was still (supposedly happily) married, she said it was a gut-wrenching moment.
"I felt just like anyone would have if they'd been lied to for a year. When I switched on the television for the Academy Awards and saw him crying as Sandra won the Oscar, I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I was shocked."
She didn't suspect anything while she and James were dating?
"Not a thing. I thought it was a bit strange that he never wanted to go out or be photographed with me. But I just thought that's what famous people do."
So, why did she come out with the story so publicly to the tabloids? Revenge? A woman scorned?
"It wasn't my choice. A friend of mine spilt details to a magazine and they were going to print the story no matter what. But they had this outrageous story about weird sexual romps and it wasn't true. So I wanted to at least tell the truth."
Does she have any regrets?
"I feel horrible for Sandra that her relationship ended so publicly. I wasn't the only one. But it just seems that I got a lot of the heat. And then he went off to sex rehab and left me to hold the ball."
Was James really a sex addict?
"No way. Sex addiction is just an excuse for celebrities who get caught."
With no sex addiction in the picture, why then do so many married men do it? Is it as former US president Bill Clinton once said, because they can? Is it because their wives don't give them enough action between the sheets? Do they simply get bored? Is it inevitable?
I was shocked and horrified last week to hear about the split between David Arquette and Courtney Cox, another seemingly seamless Hollywood couple.
But in an interview with Arquette on The Howard Stern radio show, he revealed that he hadn't been intimate with his wife in more than a month. The reason? He blamed the fact that she's an "emotional woman and if it doesn't feel right, she doesn't feel like bonding in that way". He also claimed that she nagged a lot, acted like his "mother" most of the time and didn't accept him the way he was.
So did that equate to giving himself permission to bonk an LA cocktail waitress behind her back as he reportedly did? Evidently so.
Which brings me back to the question of the day: when does one partner become responsible for the other having an affair? If your partner is pushing you away, is that a sign to go elsewhere for some nookie?
Or so says Michelle "Bombshell" McGee, the woman who is responsible for the downfall of one of Hollywood's most revered couples: Jesse James and Sandra Bullock.
When McGee, 32, recently flew Down Under for the annual "Sexpo" event, they want to pass up an interview. And while some journalist were not exactly impressed - with sentiments ranging from, "Why is the media even giving this woman air time?" to "Why the heck would you have sex with a married man anyway?" to "Glorifying what she did only continues to show these horrible men/woman that by doing the wrong thing they will be famous for 15 minutes" - I was still intrigued.
Advertisement: Story continues below
A lot of us wanted to find out straight from the Bombshell's mouth about all the cheating/husband-stealing/infidelity topics we've long been discussing on this blog. Why did she do it? Did she have no sympathy for Bullock's feelings? Did she have no regard for the pact of sisterhood which clearly states: "Thou shalt not bonk another woman's man"? Did she regret her actions? And why the heck would any woman opt to become a "mistress"?
Well, apparently she didn't know he was in a relationship. Yep, according to the petite brunette (who is covered head to toe in tattoos), James kept his marriage to Hollywood's sweetheart entirely under wraps. Hence, she had no idea the dude was still married when she got into a year-long relationship with him and fell head over heels in love.
"I wasn't a mistress," she said. "I went to it as a single person. I didn't think I was dating a married man."
The two met on MySpace when McGee contacted James in a bid to become one of his West Coast Choppers models. When he replied to her message by giving her his private email address, the romance started to bloom. When she visited his workplace, she said the two spoke for about four hours before he made a "high school move" by putting his arm around her and giving her a kiss.
"That was when I stopped him and asked him about his relationship," she recalls. "He said he couldn't talk about it and that they were separated, didn't live together and were getting a divorce. I believed him." (It's unclear whether she realised "getting a divorce" meant he was still technically married whether he was telling the truth or not.)
She felt when she found out James was still (supposedly happily) married, she said it was a gut-wrenching moment.
"I felt just like anyone would have if they'd been lied to for a year. When I switched on the television for the Academy Awards and saw him crying as Sandra won the Oscar, I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I was shocked."
She didn't suspect anything while she and James were dating?
"Not a thing. I thought it was a bit strange that he never wanted to go out or be photographed with me. But I just thought that's what famous people do."
So, why did she come out with the story so publicly to the tabloids? Revenge? A woman scorned?
"It wasn't my choice. A friend of mine spilt details to a magazine and they were going to print the story no matter what. But they had this outrageous story about weird sexual romps and it wasn't true. So I wanted to at least tell the truth."
Does she have any regrets?
"I feel horrible for Sandra that her relationship ended so publicly. I wasn't the only one. But it just seems that I got a lot of the heat. And then he went off to sex rehab and left me to hold the ball."
Was James really a sex addict?
"No way. Sex addiction is just an excuse for celebrities who get caught."
With no sex addiction in the picture, why then do so many married men do it? Is it as former US president Bill Clinton once said, because they can? Is it because their wives don't give them enough action between the sheets? Do they simply get bored? Is it inevitable?
I was shocked and horrified last week to hear about the split between David Arquette and Courtney Cox, another seemingly seamless Hollywood couple.
But in an interview with Arquette on The Howard Stern radio show, he revealed that he hadn't been intimate with his wife in more than a month. The reason? He blamed the fact that she's an "emotional woman and if it doesn't feel right, she doesn't feel like bonding in that way". He also claimed that she nagged a lot, acted like his "mother" most of the time and didn't accept him the way he was.
So did that equate to giving himself permission to bonk an LA cocktail waitress behind her back as he reportedly did? Evidently so.
Which brings me back to the question of the day: when does one partner become responsible for the other having an affair? If your partner is pushing you away, is that a sign to go elsewhere for some nookie?
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Single ladies a menace to society?
"Must love dogs!"
"Must be generous!"
"Must be tall, dark and handsome!"
Advertisement: Story continues below
OK, so women have some pretty stringent lists these days. But settling for a dude who doesn't comply with every one of our shopping list items might just be a better option than going at it alone. Especially since apparently single women are a "menace" to society.
Well, at least that's what Bill O'Reilly seems to think. Yep, according to an article in last weekend's The Sunday Life magazine, The Fox News host believes that single women who don't value the traditional family model have got it all wrong.
How dare they not want to be coupled-up and live in domestic bliss? How dare they not want to have a family! Kids! A house and a dog named Spot!
His anti-single-women sentiment was expressed after a comment was made by Hollywood star Jennifer Aniston while being interviewed about her latest flick The Switch, about a single woman who doesn't want to settle for just any man … yet still wants kids. And still attempts to have them … without doing the horizontal hanky panky.
"Women are realising more and more that they don't have to settle, they don't have to fiddle with a man to have a child," she told O'Reilly during the interview.
His response? He pooh-poohed her comments to the world, deriding women like her for being a "menace to society". Say what!?
Feeling the same wrath that comes with being a single girl about town, I know all too well how it plays out. The constant barrage of questions that come from everyone from single men to over-zealous grandparents, which go along the lines of, "You're single? What's wrong with you?" don't exactly make things any easier. And it seems I'm not the only one.
Case in point is the tale of my gorgeous model girlfriend who, after dating a string of bad boys and being in the tabloids for all the wrong reasons, found herself single, alone and over 30. Suddenly, she was more viciously attacked by the public and gossip columnists than ever before, forced to stay indoors with DVDs and rocky road ice-cream for one.
Fast forward to today - two years later - and she is about to get married to the man of her dreams. And suddenly the press and public alike have turned. Positive articles about her upcoming nuptials ricochet from glossy mags to tabloid rags, all gushing over her extravagant wedding and details of the man who stole her heart.
But here's the catch: he's nothing like the Brad Pitt look-alike she once thought she'd end up with. While some might be questioning their union, (obviously only the single ones who can't find their own Prince Charming), apparently there's a scientific reason as to why they do work.
Research has come out of the University of Sheffield and the University of Montpellier in France, announcing that we might want to forget this whole notion of the magic "ideal man list", because the study found that our actual partners are of a different height, weight and body mass index than those we would ideally choose.
Dr Phil would concur. If he is anything to go by, then we should never be in search of Mr 100% because then we're all going to be doomed. Instead, he says that, in order to be satisfied in our relationships, we need to pick a partner who ticks 80 per cent of the boxes on our checklist.
"The 100 per cent candidate doesn't exist," he says. "Instead of wasting time searching for an exact match, look for the guy who is free of the deal-breakers and has 80 per cent of what you do want in a partner. The other 20 per cent you can grow. If the guy has 80 per cent of what you want and potential to grow the extra 20 per cent, you have found your match."
It was American author Tom Robbins who once said, "We waste time looking for the perfect lover, instead of creating the perfect love."
And he might just have a point ...
"Must be generous!"
"Must be tall, dark and handsome!"
Advertisement: Story continues below
OK, so women have some pretty stringent lists these days. But settling for a dude who doesn't comply with every one of our shopping list items might just be a better option than going at it alone. Especially since apparently single women are a "menace" to society.
Well, at least that's what Bill O'Reilly seems to think. Yep, according to an article in last weekend's The Sunday Life magazine, The Fox News host believes that single women who don't value the traditional family model have got it all wrong.
How dare they not want to be coupled-up and live in domestic bliss? How dare they not want to have a family! Kids! A house and a dog named Spot!
His anti-single-women sentiment was expressed after a comment was made by Hollywood star Jennifer Aniston while being interviewed about her latest flick The Switch, about a single woman who doesn't want to settle for just any man … yet still wants kids. And still attempts to have them … without doing the horizontal hanky panky.
"Women are realising more and more that they don't have to settle, they don't have to fiddle with a man to have a child," she told O'Reilly during the interview.
His response? He pooh-poohed her comments to the world, deriding women like her for being a "menace to society". Say what!?
Feeling the same wrath that comes with being a single girl about town, I know all too well how it plays out. The constant barrage of questions that come from everyone from single men to over-zealous grandparents, which go along the lines of, "You're single? What's wrong with you?" don't exactly make things any easier. And it seems I'm not the only one.
Case in point is the tale of my gorgeous model girlfriend who, after dating a string of bad boys and being in the tabloids for all the wrong reasons, found herself single, alone and over 30. Suddenly, she was more viciously attacked by the public and gossip columnists than ever before, forced to stay indoors with DVDs and rocky road ice-cream for one.
Fast forward to today - two years later - and she is about to get married to the man of her dreams. And suddenly the press and public alike have turned. Positive articles about her upcoming nuptials ricochet from glossy mags to tabloid rags, all gushing over her extravagant wedding and details of the man who stole her heart.
But here's the catch: he's nothing like the Brad Pitt look-alike she once thought she'd end up with. While some might be questioning their union, (obviously only the single ones who can't find their own Prince Charming), apparently there's a scientific reason as to why they do work.
Research has come out of the University of Sheffield and the University of Montpellier in France, announcing that we might want to forget this whole notion of the magic "ideal man list", because the study found that our actual partners are of a different height, weight and body mass index than those we would ideally choose.
Dr Phil would concur. If he is anything to go by, then we should never be in search of Mr 100% because then we're all going to be doomed. Instead, he says that, in order to be satisfied in our relationships, we need to pick a partner who ticks 80 per cent of the boxes on our checklist.
"The 100 per cent candidate doesn't exist," he says. "Instead of wasting time searching for an exact match, look for the guy who is free of the deal-breakers and has 80 per cent of what you do want in a partner. The other 20 per cent you can grow. If the guy has 80 per cent of what you want and potential to grow the extra 20 per cent, you have found your match."
It was American author Tom Robbins who once said, "We waste time looking for the perfect lover, instead of creating the perfect love."
And he might just have a point ...
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
A damsel in distress: Do women need to be rescued?
"Do women just want to be rescued?" bellowed a headline in a recent issue of GQ magazine. "A man who can take care of his woman is damn sexy!" the subhead surmised.
Sure, a man who takes care of a woman is damn appealing. And, yes, it would be nice to believe that everyone on this romantic little planet will have the ideal fairy-tale ending complete with a Prince Charming to take out the trash, buy her roses and rescue her from her mundane single-girl existence. But do all women really want to be rescued? Are we really struggling that much that we feel nothing will save us but a stronger, smarter, financially independent bloke? Really?
If Hollywood movie endings, Sex and the City episodes and speed dating parties are anything to go by, the answer is a definitive yes. If the number of hours women spend talking about the men who are in (and not yet in) their lives were all added up for just one day, it would be fairly obvious that something would be fairly amiss. If that sad facial expressions that single women plaster on their faces at weddings as they gaze longingly at the groom wishing they were standing in the aisle, then the answer would seem to be yes. And if you happened to come across the classic tome The Cinderella Complex, you may have a clearer understanding of why playing the victim in the face of men is not only mightily appealing for women biologically, but actually works.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Yep, sadly it seems there's one small facet of female modern behaviour that pre-dates feminism and throws all those go-girl chants right out the window: many really still have an insatiable need to be rescued by a man. Even though we have (almost) equal pay, equal positions in the work place, more rights than ever before and the ability to do things like a man for the most part, somehow even the strongest women sometimes seem to have nothing better to talk about than their latest date, man drama, conquest or the one who they feel got away.
Surely in this day and age there is more to life for the fairer sex than waiting for a man to rescue us from our own mundane lives?
I wasn't entirely sure.
A poll around the office finds the results are mixed. Some women want a man for certain needs - sex, money, putting together furniture from Ikea, carrying the groceries and listening to their problems - and others simply want a life partner who is complementary, works with them as a team and will cuddle them at night.
Either way, there it is ... the "need" for a bloke. To be "rescued" as the GQ article so bluntly puts it? I certainly hope not all women aspire to that.
Men, on the other hand, seem to me to be largely less needy.
I've never heard a man blatantly admit he "needs" a girlfriend; that he is desperate to get married or that he really wants a girl to rescue him. (Unless he's a cash-strapped young thing looked for a sugar momma, but that's a whole different column.)
After interviewing a group of single 30-something men about their after-work habits and weekend rituals (and having to endure dates with some of them in the name of research), I found that there was a surprising similarity between them all: they all had their own lives with little time left over for a girlfriend.
There’s the dude who works at a bank, does swimming training at night, cycles on the weekends and plays golf on both Saturdays and Sundays. There’s the guy who works 16-hour days and then hits the gym, sleeps on the weekends and does the exact same thing week after week. There's the guy who surfs before work, hits the gym after work and sees his best mates in his spare time with little time left over for a girlfriend, let alone a second date. And there's the gent who travels so much for work, you'd think he lived on a plane. Are you getting the picture?
It amazes me how so many men have taken out the time to form a full, fulfilling schedule while so many women spend their spare time searching for the dudes who have become way too busy to see them anyway.
But back to being rescued.
The good news is that men actually want to be needed. Which is why so many women act helpless in the face of a man to whom they're attracted.
"It's a tactic I love to employ," says one of my man-eating girlfriends, who in her mid-30s has realised the key to a man's heart isn't through his stomach, but through boosting his ego by making him feel needed.
"Men might get intimidated by me, so I act like a little girl, twirl my hair and always ask them for help with everything from the computer to changing my light bulbs."
I witness one of these "damsel" acts in action. I watch the man melt. I watch him race over to help her. I watch him beg her for a date. And I see how it might in fact have some merit.
Which draws a weird line in the dating sand. Because here's the problem: sure, men need to be needed. But at the same time I often hear from the men I interview that they want someone who is independent, strong, assertive, makes decisions for herself, and isn't ever too needy. So please explain?
"Here’s the thing," one 29-year-old man tells me. "I want to be needed in the way that when she has an issue she comes to me, but I don't want a girl so dependent that I become just a wallet and a sperm bank. If she is too needy it makes me think she just wants any man and isn't really with me for me."
Needing a man is a funny concept. I continually think that if I had a man to knock holes in my wall and hang up my new paintings, buy the beer when people come over and help change the light bulbs, pay for the groceries and take me for dinner, life might be a tad easier. But then again, a trip to a Bunnings Warehouse the other evening proved to be the perfect venue for some late-night eye candy. And without booze, cheesy pick-up lines or other women competing for their attention ... they were only to eager to lend a helping hand ...
Sure, a man who takes care of a woman is damn appealing. And, yes, it would be nice to believe that everyone on this romantic little planet will have the ideal fairy-tale ending complete with a Prince Charming to take out the trash, buy her roses and rescue her from her mundane single-girl existence. But do all women really want to be rescued? Are we really struggling that much that we feel nothing will save us but a stronger, smarter, financially independent bloke? Really?
If Hollywood movie endings, Sex and the City episodes and speed dating parties are anything to go by, the answer is a definitive yes. If the number of hours women spend talking about the men who are in (and not yet in) their lives were all added up for just one day, it would be fairly obvious that something would be fairly amiss. If that sad facial expressions that single women plaster on their faces at weddings as they gaze longingly at the groom wishing they were standing in the aisle, then the answer would seem to be yes. And if you happened to come across the classic tome The Cinderella Complex, you may have a clearer understanding of why playing the victim in the face of men is not only mightily appealing for women biologically, but actually works.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Yep, sadly it seems there's one small facet of female modern behaviour that pre-dates feminism and throws all those go-girl chants right out the window: many really still have an insatiable need to be rescued by a man. Even though we have (almost) equal pay, equal positions in the work place, more rights than ever before and the ability to do things like a man for the most part, somehow even the strongest women sometimes seem to have nothing better to talk about than their latest date, man drama, conquest or the one who they feel got away.
Surely in this day and age there is more to life for the fairer sex than waiting for a man to rescue us from our own mundane lives?
I wasn't entirely sure.
A poll around the office finds the results are mixed. Some women want a man for certain needs - sex, money, putting together furniture from Ikea, carrying the groceries and listening to their problems - and others simply want a life partner who is complementary, works with them as a team and will cuddle them at night.
Either way, there it is ... the "need" for a bloke. To be "rescued" as the GQ article so bluntly puts it? I certainly hope not all women aspire to that.
Men, on the other hand, seem to me to be largely less needy.
I've never heard a man blatantly admit he "needs" a girlfriend; that he is desperate to get married or that he really wants a girl to rescue him. (Unless he's a cash-strapped young thing looked for a sugar momma, but that's a whole different column.)
After interviewing a group of single 30-something men about their after-work habits and weekend rituals (and having to endure dates with some of them in the name of research), I found that there was a surprising similarity between them all: they all had their own lives with little time left over for a girlfriend.
There’s the dude who works at a bank, does swimming training at night, cycles on the weekends and plays golf on both Saturdays and Sundays. There’s the guy who works 16-hour days and then hits the gym, sleeps on the weekends and does the exact same thing week after week. There's the guy who surfs before work, hits the gym after work and sees his best mates in his spare time with little time left over for a girlfriend, let alone a second date. And there's the gent who travels so much for work, you'd think he lived on a plane. Are you getting the picture?
It amazes me how so many men have taken out the time to form a full, fulfilling schedule while so many women spend their spare time searching for the dudes who have become way too busy to see them anyway.
But back to being rescued.
The good news is that men actually want to be needed. Which is why so many women act helpless in the face of a man to whom they're attracted.
"It's a tactic I love to employ," says one of my man-eating girlfriends, who in her mid-30s has realised the key to a man's heart isn't through his stomach, but through boosting his ego by making him feel needed.
"Men might get intimidated by me, so I act like a little girl, twirl my hair and always ask them for help with everything from the computer to changing my light bulbs."
I witness one of these "damsel" acts in action. I watch the man melt. I watch him race over to help her. I watch him beg her for a date. And I see how it might in fact have some merit.
Which draws a weird line in the dating sand. Because here's the problem: sure, men need to be needed. But at the same time I often hear from the men I interview that they want someone who is independent, strong, assertive, makes decisions for herself, and isn't ever too needy. So please explain?
"Here’s the thing," one 29-year-old man tells me. "I want to be needed in the way that when she has an issue she comes to me, but I don't want a girl so dependent that I become just a wallet and a sperm bank. If she is too needy it makes me think she just wants any man and isn't really with me for me."
Needing a man is a funny concept. I continually think that if I had a man to knock holes in my wall and hang up my new paintings, buy the beer when people come over and help change the light bulbs, pay for the groceries and take me for dinner, life might be a tad easier. But then again, a trip to a Bunnings Warehouse the other evening proved to be the perfect venue for some late-night eye candy. And without booze, cheesy pick-up lines or other women competing for their attention ... they were only to eager to lend a helping hand ...
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Does marriage kill a love?
The other night I sat chatting to a group of men – all of whom were in their early 30s ... and all of whom were divorced.
The first told me that, when he said his vows, he had no doubt it was all going to work out … till death do them part.
"I was convinced she was 'the one'," he told me. "I was so in love and was 100 per cent certain about her. But one year later, everything had changed."
Advertisement: Story continues below
The second man said that, at the exact same moment during his wedding ceremony, he wasn't as entirely convinced as his mate.
He told me: "At that moment I said a prayer to God. I said, 'Please God, may this work out.' Because I just didn't think it was going to. Unfortunately, I was right. One year later we were over."
So what changes? How can one piece of paper shift the dynamics so vastly from blissful to broken? Are the women to blame? Are they letting go of themselves once they get hitched? Do the men start to feel trapped? Do the mystery, passion and connection evaporate once a couple start living together and life gets in the way? Or is it just a cop-out for men who feel they don't need to be married anyway (with marriage no longer being a prerequisite for sex, kids and living together), so they exit stage left, blame the women and get off scot-free?
My beautician Harriet says she sees this sort of thing happen all too often among her married clients. She says that, since marriage is the ideal goal (yes, I know, it's not for everyone, but do a survey and you'll most likely find that most women aspire to getting hitched), many women will pressure the dude into doing it.
Hence the man often feels trapped, coerced or hard done by once he realises it's not what he expected and that everything the woman promised during their courtship has flown right out the window.
"Women stop panicking once they are married," Harriet says. "I guess that maybe men think that women stop making an effort and start nagging more once they're married. And then the men freak out because they feel trapped. Which is why they withdraw. And then the women wonder why their man has suddenly become distant. But if they were just in a relationship without the piece of paper, maybe the men wouldn't feel so trapped and the women wouldn't become complacent, boring or act like shrews."
Is it the women's fault?
Of course women are the easy scapegoat when it comes to men making a quick exit from a marriage. The man will say that she nags too much, no longer makes an effort with her appearance, doesn't treat him with the respect he feels he deserves and, of course, the big reason: no more sex. And, in case you think I'm being a little harsh on the blokes, there are even stats to back up this train of male thought.
In a survey of 4000 respondents of both sexes carried out by Bob Berkowitz, Ph.D. and Susan Yager-Berkowitz, M.A for their book titled He's Just Not Up for It Anymore. Why Men Stop Having Sex. And What You Can Do About It, 68 per cent of the blokes said their marriages were ruined because their wives were "not being adventurous enough" in the bedroom, while 38 per cent said it was their wives' "weight gain" that turned them off having sex. (Only 30 per cent admitted it was their fault - citing erectile dysfunction.)
Either way, my mate Ed reckons he's found a solution. He's married with kids, and does what he wants on the side with whomever he wants without getting emotionally attached or letting his wife in on his transgressions.
"That's just who I am," he tells me, refusing to believe that what he does is adultery. "I love sex and I'm going to have it," he insists. "I've learnt to accept that about myself."
Does Ed have a happy marriage? Or have his actions (albeit secret) killed their relationship, bond, love and romance?
"Absolutely not," he says with conviction. "We're still great together."
So why did he get married? I have no bloody idea …
Marriage doesn't happen for everyone
I have a 30-something female colleague whom we'll call Beth, who has surmised that not everyone's life has a happy ending. That some of us just never find love. And that's the way it is. As sad as it may seem, she might be right. After all, according to stats out of Britain, there are fewer weddings taking place than the lowest number recorded since 1895. And with so many divorces, there are more people unwilling to dip their toes into the icy water of marriage, let alone enter into a long-term relationship.
But perhaps the problem isn't that marriage kills a relationship, but rather that people have too many expectations of what a happy marriage actually entails. Because, when you're together with someone for such a long period of time and real life does get in the way, it becomes so much more than sex, love and passion. It becomes a partnership ... a team ... a lifelong commitment. And for many these days, that's just too hard a pill to swallow.
The first told me that, when he said his vows, he had no doubt it was all going to work out … till death do them part.
"I was convinced she was 'the one'," he told me. "I was so in love and was 100 per cent certain about her. But one year later, everything had changed."
Advertisement: Story continues below
The second man said that, at the exact same moment during his wedding ceremony, he wasn't as entirely convinced as his mate.
He told me: "At that moment I said a prayer to God. I said, 'Please God, may this work out.' Because I just didn't think it was going to. Unfortunately, I was right. One year later we were over."
So what changes? How can one piece of paper shift the dynamics so vastly from blissful to broken? Are the women to blame? Are they letting go of themselves once they get hitched? Do the men start to feel trapped? Do the mystery, passion and connection evaporate once a couple start living together and life gets in the way? Or is it just a cop-out for men who feel they don't need to be married anyway (with marriage no longer being a prerequisite for sex, kids and living together), so they exit stage left, blame the women and get off scot-free?
My beautician Harriet says she sees this sort of thing happen all too often among her married clients. She says that, since marriage is the ideal goal (yes, I know, it's not for everyone, but do a survey and you'll most likely find that most women aspire to getting hitched), many women will pressure the dude into doing it.
Hence the man often feels trapped, coerced or hard done by once he realises it's not what he expected and that everything the woman promised during their courtship has flown right out the window.
"Women stop panicking once they are married," Harriet says. "I guess that maybe men think that women stop making an effort and start nagging more once they're married. And then the men freak out because they feel trapped. Which is why they withdraw. And then the women wonder why their man has suddenly become distant. But if they were just in a relationship without the piece of paper, maybe the men wouldn't feel so trapped and the women wouldn't become complacent, boring or act like shrews."
Is it the women's fault?
Of course women are the easy scapegoat when it comes to men making a quick exit from a marriage. The man will say that she nags too much, no longer makes an effort with her appearance, doesn't treat him with the respect he feels he deserves and, of course, the big reason: no more sex. And, in case you think I'm being a little harsh on the blokes, there are even stats to back up this train of male thought.
In a survey of 4000 respondents of both sexes carried out by Bob Berkowitz, Ph.D. and Susan Yager-Berkowitz, M.A for their book titled He's Just Not Up for It Anymore. Why Men Stop Having Sex. And What You Can Do About It, 68 per cent of the blokes said their marriages were ruined because their wives were "not being adventurous enough" in the bedroom, while 38 per cent said it was their wives' "weight gain" that turned them off having sex. (Only 30 per cent admitted it was their fault - citing erectile dysfunction.)
Either way, my mate Ed reckons he's found a solution. He's married with kids, and does what he wants on the side with whomever he wants without getting emotionally attached or letting his wife in on his transgressions.
"That's just who I am," he tells me, refusing to believe that what he does is adultery. "I love sex and I'm going to have it," he insists. "I've learnt to accept that about myself."
Does Ed have a happy marriage? Or have his actions (albeit secret) killed their relationship, bond, love and romance?
"Absolutely not," he says with conviction. "We're still great together."
So why did he get married? I have no bloody idea …
Marriage doesn't happen for everyone
I have a 30-something female colleague whom we'll call Beth, who has surmised that not everyone's life has a happy ending. That some of us just never find love. And that's the way it is. As sad as it may seem, she might be right. After all, according to stats out of Britain, there are fewer weddings taking place than the lowest number recorded since 1895. And with so many divorces, there are more people unwilling to dip their toes into the icy water of marriage, let alone enter into a long-term relationship.
But perhaps the problem isn't that marriage kills a relationship, but rather that people have too many expectations of what a happy marriage actually entails. Because, when you're together with someone for such a long period of time and real life does get in the way, it becomes so much more than sex, love and passion. It becomes a partnership ... a team ... a lifelong commitment. And for many these days, that's just too hard a pill to swallow.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Are modern women barking up the wrong age-appropriate tree?
There's a new trend on the dating block and it's getting younger women's knickers all wound up in a knot. It's not the fact that there are a surplus of players, cheating cads or too many expectations of casual sex on the first date that are getting young modern femmes in a tizzy. Instead, it's that they're being overlooked … for older women.
I've never dated a much younger man. But seeing my girlfriend go all googly-eyed over a man who is at least 10 years her junior is making me wonder: have too many women for way too long been barking up the wrong, seemingly age-appropriate, tree? And have the tables finally turned? Are the younger women being shunned for their older - albeit more sophisticated, less desperate - single counterparts?
My girlfriend is not a cougar (which by definition is a woman over 40 who actively seeks out younger men for sex). Nor is she a desperate singleton who can't meet a man. Nor is she on the hunt for a toy boy. Oh no. Instead, she's the type of gal who has men flocking all over her and can't bat them away fast enough despite the fact she's mastered the art of the cold-shoulder. But when a younger man started to woo her relentlessly, suddenly things began getting mightily exciting.
Because here's the thing: younger men aren't jaded. They haven't been heartbroken (yet), they haven't been played, dumped or manipulated and they're not into games (or at least they haven't yet discovered how exactly to play them). Instead, they simply do what they feel like when they feel like doing it without fear of consequences, rejection or judgment.
When I ask my girlfriend how the relationship is progressing, she tells me that what's keeping them together is being at a similar stage in life.
"We're both progressing in our careers and are fired up about life. We both want to travel and explore the world. That's why it's working," she says.
But there's more. It seems to me that younger men dote on older women, aren't afraid to wear their hearts on their sleeves, are eager to please and - even more beneficial - are eager to learn.
Which puts older men - and younger women - at a disadvantage when it comes to the modern dating game. Or any dating game for that matter. Or at least if Benjamin Franklin's reasoning is anything to go by. Long before Desperate Housewives, Cougar Town and Demi Moore, Franklin appeared to realise the value of dating an older woman when he wrote a letter to a friend, giving him the following advice:
"In all your amours you should prefer old women to young ones. You call this a paradox, and demand my reasons. They are these: Because as they have more knowledge of the world and their minds are better stored with observations, their conversation is more improving and more lastingly agreeable. Because when women cease to be handsome they study to be good. To maintain their influence over men, they supply the diminution of beauty by an augmentation of utility. They learn to do a thousand services small and great, and are the most tender and useful of all friends when you are sick. Thus they continue amiable. And hence there is hardly such a thing to be found as an old woman who is not a good woman."
But let's get real here: is the appeal simply the lure of better sex? Are older women more likely to give it up sooner than younger women? And are they really better at it?
Miss Cougar Canada Alison Brown (yes, there is such a thing as a cougar competition) says the answer is a definitive no.
She told Time magazine this: "What I've noticed on dating sites today is that younger men are coming on to me, and it's not just because we're 'easy marks' for sex. It's because we're successful, intelligent, looking great and we don't play games like so many of the younger girls they date."
Case in point is what one younger man told me about dating an older women: "It's not about the sex - although it's usually fantastic - but it's about the ability to be intellectually stimulated outside the bedroom that makes it all the more appealing."
Many, including Michael Dunn, a noted psychology researcher at the University of Wales Institute in Cardiff, believe the notion of the cougar is indeed a myth. They say not that many women are seeking younger men, but are looking instead for any partner who ticks most of the boxes. I think that perhaps we should start to look outside our age-gap box.
Because if it's flowers, attention and good sex you're after, sometimes it's the ones who don't tick the boxes on your checklists that end up being the best partners in real life after all ...
What do you think?
I've never dated a much younger man. But seeing my girlfriend go all googly-eyed over a man who is at least 10 years her junior is making me wonder: have too many women for way too long been barking up the wrong, seemingly age-appropriate, tree? And have the tables finally turned? Are the younger women being shunned for their older - albeit more sophisticated, less desperate - single counterparts?
My girlfriend is not a cougar (which by definition is a woman over 40 who actively seeks out younger men for sex). Nor is she a desperate singleton who can't meet a man. Nor is she on the hunt for a toy boy. Oh no. Instead, she's the type of gal who has men flocking all over her and can't bat them away fast enough despite the fact she's mastered the art of the cold-shoulder. But when a younger man started to woo her relentlessly, suddenly things began getting mightily exciting.
Because here's the thing: younger men aren't jaded. They haven't been heartbroken (yet), they haven't been played, dumped or manipulated and they're not into games (or at least they haven't yet discovered how exactly to play them). Instead, they simply do what they feel like when they feel like doing it without fear of consequences, rejection or judgment.
When I ask my girlfriend how the relationship is progressing, she tells me that what's keeping them together is being at a similar stage in life.
"We're both progressing in our careers and are fired up about life. We both want to travel and explore the world. That's why it's working," she says.
But there's more. It seems to me that younger men dote on older women, aren't afraid to wear their hearts on their sleeves, are eager to please and - even more beneficial - are eager to learn.
Which puts older men - and younger women - at a disadvantage when it comes to the modern dating game. Or any dating game for that matter. Or at least if Benjamin Franklin's reasoning is anything to go by. Long before Desperate Housewives, Cougar Town and Demi Moore, Franklin appeared to realise the value of dating an older woman when he wrote a letter to a friend, giving him the following advice:
"In all your amours you should prefer old women to young ones. You call this a paradox, and demand my reasons. They are these: Because as they have more knowledge of the world and their minds are better stored with observations, their conversation is more improving and more lastingly agreeable. Because when women cease to be handsome they study to be good. To maintain their influence over men, they supply the diminution of beauty by an augmentation of utility. They learn to do a thousand services small and great, and are the most tender and useful of all friends when you are sick. Thus they continue amiable. And hence there is hardly such a thing to be found as an old woman who is not a good woman."
But let's get real here: is the appeal simply the lure of better sex? Are older women more likely to give it up sooner than younger women? And are they really better at it?
Miss Cougar Canada Alison Brown (yes, there is such a thing as a cougar competition) says the answer is a definitive no.
She told Time magazine this: "What I've noticed on dating sites today is that younger men are coming on to me, and it's not just because we're 'easy marks' for sex. It's because we're successful, intelligent, looking great and we don't play games like so many of the younger girls they date."
Case in point is what one younger man told me about dating an older women: "It's not about the sex - although it's usually fantastic - but it's about the ability to be intellectually stimulated outside the bedroom that makes it all the more appealing."
Many, including Michael Dunn, a noted psychology researcher at the University of Wales Institute in Cardiff, believe the notion of the cougar is indeed a myth. They say not that many women are seeking younger men, but are looking instead for any partner who ticks most of the boxes. I think that perhaps we should start to look outside our age-gap box.
Because if it's flowers, attention and good sex you're after, sometimes it's the ones who don't tick the boxes on your checklists that end up being the best partners in real life after all ...
What do you think?
Saturday, October 2, 2010
What the bloody hell are men thinking?
Most women have one gripe in common when it comes to romantic relationships: they'll never understand men.
"If you don't understand us, there's something wrong with you," one man often tells me. "We're basically one step up from a caveman."
But it's not our fault either. Sometimes men are rude, unresponsive or moody, only to turn around later (after we've been sobbing to our mates for hours) to tell us they were simply hungry, horny or tired. My gay friend Kurt reckons that the more straight-forward, realistic, honest and balanced you are with a man, the more he takes advantage and gives you the opposite reaction back. "They're like children," he says. "They take advantage of you. Reward bad behaviour by being nice and they get worse. You can't win."
Sure, blokes are notorious for not wearing their hearts on their sleeves, for not saying it like it is (or at least that's how we perceive it because men think they're always straightforward), for stringing us along (which they claim is not their fault but rather ours for falling in love with them too soon) and then having it all blow up in our faces when they finally tell us the truth: they simply aren't ready for a girlfriend.
So I was intrigued to say the least, when I read that author Zoe Strimpel spent a year undercover interviewing hundreds of men, in the hope of coming up with explanations for their strange behaviours and foibles. The result? A book titled What the Hell is He Thinking? which aims to debunk some of the myths we associate with the men in our lives. See what you think ….
MYTH: Men get over their exes right away.
TRUTH: Men find it far harder to get over their exes than women do.
I often marvel at the ability of recently dumped blokes to get over their exes faster than a speeding bullet. But Strimpel reckons it's not as easy for them as they make it out to be. They're just better at hiding their feelings. "Because they don't feel able to discuss their emotions with their mates as we do with ours, it's hard for them to really get out all their hurt and move on, so the emotional pain festers," says Strimpel. "Whereas we tend to cry for weeks, then start to feel better, a guy will keep quiet, shag around, then realise he hasn't moved on when you're already out with the next guy."
MYTH: If you hang around a guy for long enough, he'll commit to you.
TRUTH: Many men string along women for two to three months without ever intending to have a relationship.
What is it with a man stringing a woman along for three months or so, only to say he never really wanted a girlfriend in the first place and that he no longer wants to see her … ever again?
While women are notorious for doing the "fantasy jump" (imagining the white wedding and the names of their kids after a few dates), some men seem to do the opposite. Call them commitment-phobes but the more intense things become, the more they back off, believing that the relationship is going to be a mammoth threat to their freedom, their sex life and their bachelor pad. Hence they rationalise they better exit stage left, and fast, before – heaven forbid! – things actually start to become serious.
Adam, 31, calls these men "Casanovas" and tells Strimpel this: "Casanovas teach themselves how to make women fall for them, because they weren't always the smoothies they are now. They get off on the validation of getting it right over and over, but don't care about a long-term result - and they're cold perfectionists."
MYTH: Men who cheat can reform.
TRUTH: Your mother was right: Once a cheater, always a cheater.
I thought this was about right when a married bloke told me the other night he was "interested", to which I replied, "Not a chance in hell mate." He couldn't understand my answer. "Thirty other women have been with me while I've been married and haven't cared about the ring," he responded, thinking that would make it OK. It wouldn't.
Strimpel says that the surprising thing that came out of her research was that, even if you're "the other woman" and think you're so special that you rescued some dude from his fledgling relationship or boring life of matrimony, don't think that he won't do it to you, too. He will. And he'll do it again and again. Apparently (according to the blokes she interviewed) the saying is true: once a cheater, always a cheater. Because blokes do it, there's nothing to stop them from trying it again.
MYTH: When your boyfriend starts to act distant and weird, it's because he's hungry or stressed.
FACT: Men act weird when they want out of the relationship but don't want to be confrontational so they hope you'll dump them first instead.
We're so often told that, when a man becomes distant, he's hungry, wants sex or is stressed. But sometimes Strimpel says the answer is a little more complex: he's no longer interested in the relationship and is hoping that if he acts like a douchebag long enough, you'll dump him first instead. Ouch.
MYTH: Men hate it when we talk too much.
FACT: Men love it when we say certain things.
Following in Strimpel's footsteps, I decided to carry out my own research and, over the past few days, have been carrying out a poll which involves asking men about the phrases they love to hear coming out of our mouths. This is what the men have told me. Feel free to add to the list ...
"You're right."
"Size doesn't matter."
"Will you help me unscrew this?"
"Your [insert body part] is amazing."
"I love your bald head / grey hair."
"You are so good at [insert action here]."
"Dinner will be on the table when you get home ... served naked … by me."
"Anything that involves us being fed or getting laid ... "
Enough said!
"If you don't understand us, there's something wrong with you," one man often tells me. "We're basically one step up from a caveman."
But it's not our fault either. Sometimes men are rude, unresponsive or moody, only to turn around later (after we've been sobbing to our mates for hours) to tell us they were simply hungry, horny or tired. My gay friend Kurt reckons that the more straight-forward, realistic, honest and balanced you are with a man, the more he takes advantage and gives you the opposite reaction back. "They're like children," he says. "They take advantage of you. Reward bad behaviour by being nice and they get worse. You can't win."
Sure, blokes are notorious for not wearing their hearts on their sleeves, for not saying it like it is (or at least that's how we perceive it because men think they're always straightforward), for stringing us along (which they claim is not their fault but rather ours for falling in love with them too soon) and then having it all blow up in our faces when they finally tell us the truth: they simply aren't ready for a girlfriend.
So I was intrigued to say the least, when I read that author Zoe Strimpel spent a year undercover interviewing hundreds of men, in the hope of coming up with explanations for their strange behaviours and foibles. The result? A book titled What the Hell is He Thinking? which aims to debunk some of the myths we associate with the men in our lives. See what you think ….
MYTH: Men get over their exes right away.
TRUTH: Men find it far harder to get over their exes than women do.
I often marvel at the ability of recently dumped blokes to get over their exes faster than a speeding bullet. But Strimpel reckons it's not as easy for them as they make it out to be. They're just better at hiding their feelings. "Because they don't feel able to discuss their emotions with their mates as we do with ours, it's hard for them to really get out all their hurt and move on, so the emotional pain festers," says Strimpel. "Whereas we tend to cry for weeks, then start to feel better, a guy will keep quiet, shag around, then realise he hasn't moved on when you're already out with the next guy."
MYTH: If you hang around a guy for long enough, he'll commit to you.
TRUTH: Many men string along women for two to three months without ever intending to have a relationship.
What is it with a man stringing a woman along for three months or so, only to say he never really wanted a girlfriend in the first place and that he no longer wants to see her … ever again?
While women are notorious for doing the "fantasy jump" (imagining the white wedding and the names of their kids after a few dates), some men seem to do the opposite. Call them commitment-phobes but the more intense things become, the more they back off, believing that the relationship is going to be a mammoth threat to their freedom, their sex life and their bachelor pad. Hence they rationalise they better exit stage left, and fast, before – heaven forbid! – things actually start to become serious.
Adam, 31, calls these men "Casanovas" and tells Strimpel this: "Casanovas teach themselves how to make women fall for them, because they weren't always the smoothies they are now. They get off on the validation of getting it right over and over, but don't care about a long-term result - and they're cold perfectionists."
MYTH: Men who cheat can reform.
TRUTH: Your mother was right: Once a cheater, always a cheater.
I thought this was about right when a married bloke told me the other night he was "interested", to which I replied, "Not a chance in hell mate." He couldn't understand my answer. "Thirty other women have been with me while I've been married and haven't cared about the ring," he responded, thinking that would make it OK. It wouldn't.
Strimpel says that the surprising thing that came out of her research was that, even if you're "the other woman" and think you're so special that you rescued some dude from his fledgling relationship or boring life of matrimony, don't think that he won't do it to you, too. He will. And he'll do it again and again. Apparently (according to the blokes she interviewed) the saying is true: once a cheater, always a cheater. Because blokes do it, there's nothing to stop them from trying it again.
MYTH: When your boyfriend starts to act distant and weird, it's because he's hungry or stressed.
FACT: Men act weird when they want out of the relationship but don't want to be confrontational so they hope you'll dump them first instead.
We're so often told that, when a man becomes distant, he's hungry, wants sex or is stressed. But sometimes Strimpel says the answer is a little more complex: he's no longer interested in the relationship and is hoping that if he acts like a douchebag long enough, you'll dump him first instead. Ouch.
MYTH: Men hate it when we talk too much.
FACT: Men love it when we say certain things.
Following in Strimpel's footsteps, I decided to carry out my own research and, over the past few days, have been carrying out a poll which involves asking men about the phrases they love to hear coming out of our mouths. This is what the men have told me. Feel free to add to the list ...
"You're right."
"Size doesn't matter."
"Will you help me unscrew this?"
"Your [insert body part] is amazing."
"I love your bald head / grey hair."
"You are so good at [insert action here]."
"Dinner will be on the table when you get home ... served naked … by me."
"Anything that involves us being fed or getting laid ... "
Enough said!
Monday, September 27, 2010
Why is Sexism being overlooked?
I'm confused. Women these days are doing a hell of a lot of whingeing, whining and complaining, and not only when a man doesn't call them back or doesn't come home when he said he would.
As I write this I'm sitting at a coffee shop listening to the manager complain about the fact that her husband has had three affairs, doesn't give a "shit" about her and why she can't ever leave him – the kids, the property and the life he's given her.
"I don't want to have to lose it all and have to start all over again," she says.
A girlfriend calls to tell me that she hasn't yet heard from her long-distance boyfriend in what seems like forever (it's been two hours), and a third woman says she isn't sure that the dude she's dating is long-term boyfriend material because he's "way too nice". Say what?!
Sure, all this chatter and incessant whining is a little nauseating (but hard to avoid considering we women say a whopping 12,000 more words than men most days), and most gents would rather be organ-harvested than have to hear a woman drone on and on about her issues.
But aside from the usual man-not-giving-his-woman-enough-attention saga, there's another, albeit more pressing issue that women have started to whine about. I'm talking about the growing amount of sexism in the workplace, and the way it's infiltrated into romantic relationships too.
Case in point is that of three former female employees of Goldman Sachs who recently sued the bank over alleged unequal rights citing "unchecked gender bias".
While there were loads of folks who poohed-poohed their claim and put it down to another whining session from the fairer sex, the girls certainly got the media world debating the topic of whether sexism in the work place is really still very much alive, even after all these years of feminism, breaking glass ceilings and women fighting for equality.
Actress Lindsay Lohan recently said that sexism was rife in Hollywood citing the fact that while misbehaving female stars are shunned, men who do the same "keep their deals" and are only the more celebrated for their foibles. (Finally, the woman has a good point!) And feminist groups are getting their panties in a tizzy over a KFC advert in which college women bear a logo with the words "Double Down" on their butts (see video below), saying that it perpetuates sexism and female exploitation and that they are tired of fast-food companies using female bodies to promote their products. (I don't see anyone complaining about the almost nude blokes in Abercrombie and Fitch adverts or the latest Armani campaign!)
But what do the men think?
According to a recent Harris Interactive poll, over half of the blokes surveyed said they believed things were equal in the workplace, which either proves that women are blowing steam over nothing, or the men simply don't give a toss.
Ask the women and it's a very different response: 32 per cent said they feel they're often treated unfairly in the workplace, don't receive the say pay as men and are discriminated against when it comes to getting a promotion.
And it doesn't stop there. More women are coming out of the woodwork complaining they've been verbally and sexually assaulted at work; are being told what they can and can't wear, and are being treated mightily differently from the blokes they sit next to in the boardroom.
But here's what surprises me most: it's not only in the workplace that women are making complaints over the repercussions of sexism and unequal rights. Switch over to the bedroom and it seems there's a very similar story.
Women are complaining that men are no longer chivalrous (of course that depends which bloke you're dating), and, according to the same Harris Interactive poll, four out of five women say chivalry is dead … or at least on its way out.
I promised I wouldn't bring in the paying scenario yet again, but seriously – on the weekend one dude made my friend pay half the cab ride, another made me pay for dinner on our first date and a third insisted my girlfriend pay for the hotel room they were sharing for a dirty weekend away.
"Women are equal now," said one man when I asked him what was the story with all this ungentlemanly behaviour. "That's the way they like it … isn't it?"
See, here's the catch: we have women such as New York Times journalist Maureen Dowd asking whether men are even really necessary. We have scientists telling us there's a very real fear of males becoming extinct. And we have columnists (like moi) bringing up the fact that there's a real fear that we've reached an era in which it's the end of the alpha male as we once knew and loved him.
No wonder the poor blokes are confused. They think we don't need them and then they wonder why the heck we still want them to open doors, pay for our dinners, buy us cocktails and bring home the bacon when we decide we don't want to work any more.
So have we given blokes the wrong impression? Have we created our own sexism backlash? And are relationships suffering because of it all?
I think so. Because, biologically blokes still need to be the hero, even if it's just for their own self-esteem. Take away their jobs – as happened to so many during the financial crisis – or their ability to help us, look after us and step up to be "the man" in the relationship and they risk losing their identity, their confidence and their ability to be a good boyfriend / partner / husband / father. Take it from me who dated a dude without a job … I should know.
Sure we want to eradicate sexism. But not as a consequence of killing off chivalry at the same time.
Are women really being unfairly treated in the workplace? And what about when it comes to romantic relationships?
PS. Check out the KFC ad, see for yourself ...
As I write this I'm sitting at a coffee shop listening to the manager complain about the fact that her husband has had three affairs, doesn't give a "shit" about her and why she can't ever leave him – the kids, the property and the life he's given her.
"I don't want to have to lose it all and have to start all over again," she says.
A girlfriend calls to tell me that she hasn't yet heard from her long-distance boyfriend in what seems like forever (it's been two hours), and a third woman says she isn't sure that the dude she's dating is long-term boyfriend material because he's "way too nice". Say what?!
Sure, all this chatter and incessant whining is a little nauseating (but hard to avoid considering we women say a whopping 12,000 more words than men most days), and most gents would rather be organ-harvested than have to hear a woman drone on and on about her issues.
But aside from the usual man-not-giving-his-woman-enough-attention saga, there's another, albeit more pressing issue that women have started to whine about. I'm talking about the growing amount of sexism in the workplace, and the way it's infiltrated into romantic relationships too.
Case in point is that of three former female employees of Goldman Sachs who recently sued the bank over alleged unequal rights citing "unchecked gender bias".
While there were loads of folks who poohed-poohed their claim and put it down to another whining session from the fairer sex, the girls certainly got the media world debating the topic of whether sexism in the work place is really still very much alive, even after all these years of feminism, breaking glass ceilings and women fighting for equality.
Actress Lindsay Lohan recently said that sexism was rife in Hollywood citing the fact that while misbehaving female stars are shunned, men who do the same "keep their deals" and are only the more celebrated for their foibles. (Finally, the woman has a good point!) And feminist groups are getting their panties in a tizzy over a KFC advert in which college women bear a logo with the words "Double Down" on their butts (see video below), saying that it perpetuates sexism and female exploitation and that they are tired of fast-food companies using female bodies to promote their products. (I don't see anyone complaining about the almost nude blokes in Abercrombie and Fitch adverts or the latest Armani campaign!)
But what do the men think?
According to a recent Harris Interactive poll, over half of the blokes surveyed said they believed things were equal in the workplace, which either proves that women are blowing steam over nothing, or the men simply don't give a toss.
Ask the women and it's a very different response: 32 per cent said they feel they're often treated unfairly in the workplace, don't receive the say pay as men and are discriminated against when it comes to getting a promotion.
And it doesn't stop there. More women are coming out of the woodwork complaining they've been verbally and sexually assaulted at work; are being told what they can and can't wear, and are being treated mightily differently from the blokes they sit next to in the boardroom.
But here's what surprises me most: it's not only in the workplace that women are making complaints over the repercussions of sexism and unequal rights. Switch over to the bedroom and it seems there's a very similar story.
Women are complaining that men are no longer chivalrous (of course that depends which bloke you're dating), and, according to the same Harris Interactive poll, four out of five women say chivalry is dead … or at least on its way out.
I promised I wouldn't bring in the paying scenario yet again, but seriously – on the weekend one dude made my friend pay half the cab ride, another made me pay for dinner on our first date and a third insisted my girlfriend pay for the hotel room they were sharing for a dirty weekend away.
"Women are equal now," said one man when I asked him what was the story with all this ungentlemanly behaviour. "That's the way they like it … isn't it?"
See, here's the catch: we have women such as New York Times journalist Maureen Dowd asking whether men are even really necessary. We have scientists telling us there's a very real fear of males becoming extinct. And we have columnists (like moi) bringing up the fact that there's a real fear that we've reached an era in which it's the end of the alpha male as we once knew and loved him.
No wonder the poor blokes are confused. They think we don't need them and then they wonder why the heck we still want them to open doors, pay for our dinners, buy us cocktails and bring home the bacon when we decide we don't want to work any more.
So have we given blokes the wrong impression? Have we created our own sexism backlash? And are relationships suffering because of it all?
I think so. Because, biologically blokes still need to be the hero, even if it's just for their own self-esteem. Take away their jobs – as happened to so many during the financial crisis – or their ability to help us, look after us and step up to be "the man" in the relationship and they risk losing their identity, their confidence and their ability to be a good boyfriend / partner / husband / father. Take it from me who dated a dude without a job … I should know.
Sure we want to eradicate sexism. But not as a consequence of killing off chivalry at the same time.
Are women really being unfairly treated in the workplace? And what about when it comes to romantic relationships?
PS. Check out the KFC ad, see for yourself ...
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Man Eaters: Is it compulsory to need a man?
My friends are constantly telling me that I'm fine just the way I am. Without a boyfriend. Single. So why do I sometimes find myself disagreeing? I'll tell you why.
Because I've recently moved into my own apartment. And taken up kickboxing. So I'm not exactly what you'd call a damsel in distress. But when a single girl has to take herself to Ikea and to pick up unassembled furniture in boxes on an unstable trolley that weighs more than a life-size replica of Hulk Hogan, and then have to assemble it herself (sans a tool kit), men suddenly appear to be mightily useful.
Not to mention that paying the mortgage and buying your own cocktails every single weekend get bloody darn expensive. Other than that, I'm doing just fine. Really.
Of course there are two types of single ladies: there's the Jennifer Aniston type who is perpetually on the hunt for a date, cries "poor me!" when she gets dumped yet again by another dude who used her for sex and never called on her birthday, and is still whingeing about the way her ex left her for another woman… five years ago.
Then there's the Cameron Diaz type – feisty, sexy, sassy and one step ahead of the perplexing male game. She's always alone; dancing alone, eating alone, surfing alone and makes it clear she prefers to be single than to have a man by her side stealing the limelight. Not that her life is devoid of men either. Oh no, these women know exactly how to catch 'em, keep 'em and then toss them aside like a used piece of gum in favour of the next hot bachelor who comes their way. The difference?
Many of these women are bona fide man-eaters, who, says one bloke, talk about men as men talk about steak - juicy pieces of meat to be picked, enjoyed and devoured before they move on to the next.
While life coach Alina B pooh-poohs the man-eater theory by claiming that these women just "use men as sport for their own egos", and do so "without consideration of love or the fact that a man is human too and not fodder for her ex-lover revenge", I'm not convinced that they don't actually have the secret to men, love, and life.
They don't need men, men are simply accessories to their already fabulous lives, just like most men view women. And aren't those the types of women men are drawn to anyway?
Despite what anyone might say, it seems that man-eaters definitely have more fun that the rest of us, more options, more luck in the man-department and certainly, if nothing else, a darn good sex life.
And if what Newsweek once said (albeit in the 80s) rings true – that there is more chance of a woman in over the age of 35 getting killed by a terrorist than getting married? Well, then I think many might need to step up with some attitude.
But I still wonder: in a world in which competition among women all vying for the last remaining single heterosexual bloke on the block is more fierce than an AFL grand final … is it better to be a man-eater or a timid girl?
Kathryn Eisman, the bestselling author of How To Tell A Woman By Her Handbag and host of the US TV show The Timid Girl's Guide To Life, says that, while man-eaters usually know how to get the guy, at the end of the day women who push men around are very unattractive.
"There are ways of getting a man's attention in a playful and empowered manner and that doesn't involve a padded bra!" she says.
Her suggestions for timid girls wanting to get in on the action include:
- "Separate yourself from the 'pack'- even the most confident guy will be intimidated if you're surrounded by a group of cackling chicks. Yet women often travel in herds and wonder why no poor guy has started talking to them. Go get a glass of water from the bar alone if you have to!
- "You can pick which men pick you up. It's simple. To make a man aware of your presence and your potential interest, all you need to do is direct a little attention towards them with a look. I call it the '3 second rule'. Coyly look over in his general direction without staring directly at him. Once you feel his eyes on you, give him a quick smile and look away. Do this twice and if he's remotely interested it's only a matter of time before he approaches you.
- "Once he does, don't freak out! If you're nervous talking about yourself, just ask him questions about himself. Trust me, it's his favourite topic.
- "If things get awkward, don't start gabbing about your mother's blind cat. Collect yourself and joke about the situation. Humour is the ultimate ice-breaker."
Next month I have a wedding. It will be the first function I've attended alone in almost a decade. Instead of being fearful, I've decided I'm going to channel Cameron Diaz. Dancing alone will never have looked so good…
Oh, and in case you're wondering if men really are that useful at all, I've put together a list of things that they really are useful for (orgasms not included!):
* Assembling things from Ikea
* Carrying heavy items
* Foot massages
* Cuddles
* Sundays – the loneliest day of the week
* Bringing you chicken soup when you're sick
* Borrowing their car when yours is at the panel beaters
* Deflecting creepy blokes at bars who try to crack on to you
* Being a date at your cousin's wedding
And just in case you're still wondering … no I'm not a man-hater, a man-eater or a man-dependent woman … I'm just trying to work out how much of a role they should really play in a single girl's life … especially when some of them don't even pay for dinner on the first date …
Because I've recently moved into my own apartment. And taken up kickboxing. So I'm not exactly what you'd call a damsel in distress. But when a single girl has to take herself to Ikea and to pick up unassembled furniture in boxes on an unstable trolley that weighs more than a life-size replica of Hulk Hogan, and then have to assemble it herself (sans a tool kit), men suddenly appear to be mightily useful.
Not to mention that paying the mortgage and buying your own cocktails every single weekend get bloody darn expensive. Other than that, I'm doing just fine. Really.
Of course there are two types of single ladies: there's the Jennifer Aniston type who is perpetually on the hunt for a date, cries "poor me!" when she gets dumped yet again by another dude who used her for sex and never called on her birthday, and is still whingeing about the way her ex left her for another woman… five years ago.
Then there's the Cameron Diaz type – feisty, sexy, sassy and one step ahead of the perplexing male game. She's always alone; dancing alone, eating alone, surfing alone and makes it clear she prefers to be single than to have a man by her side stealing the limelight. Not that her life is devoid of men either. Oh no, these women know exactly how to catch 'em, keep 'em and then toss them aside like a used piece of gum in favour of the next hot bachelor who comes their way. The difference?
Many of these women are bona fide man-eaters, who, says one bloke, talk about men as men talk about steak - juicy pieces of meat to be picked, enjoyed and devoured before they move on to the next.
While life coach Alina B pooh-poohs the man-eater theory by claiming that these women just "use men as sport for their own egos", and do so "without consideration of love or the fact that a man is human too and not fodder for her ex-lover revenge", I'm not convinced that they don't actually have the secret to men, love, and life.
They don't need men, men are simply accessories to their already fabulous lives, just like most men view women. And aren't those the types of women men are drawn to anyway?
Despite what anyone might say, it seems that man-eaters definitely have more fun that the rest of us, more options, more luck in the man-department and certainly, if nothing else, a darn good sex life.
And if what Newsweek once said (albeit in the 80s) rings true – that there is more chance of a woman in over the age of 35 getting killed by a terrorist than getting married? Well, then I think many might need to step up with some attitude.
But I still wonder: in a world in which competition among women all vying for the last remaining single heterosexual bloke on the block is more fierce than an AFL grand final … is it better to be a man-eater or a timid girl?
Kathryn Eisman, the bestselling author of How To Tell A Woman By Her Handbag and host of the US TV show The Timid Girl's Guide To Life, says that, while man-eaters usually know how to get the guy, at the end of the day women who push men around are very unattractive.
"There are ways of getting a man's attention in a playful and empowered manner and that doesn't involve a padded bra!" she says.
Her suggestions for timid girls wanting to get in on the action include:
- "Separate yourself from the 'pack'- even the most confident guy will be intimidated if you're surrounded by a group of cackling chicks. Yet women often travel in herds and wonder why no poor guy has started talking to them. Go get a glass of water from the bar alone if you have to!
- "You can pick which men pick you up. It's simple. To make a man aware of your presence and your potential interest, all you need to do is direct a little attention towards them with a look. I call it the '3 second rule'. Coyly look over in his general direction without staring directly at him. Once you feel his eyes on you, give him a quick smile and look away. Do this twice and if he's remotely interested it's only a matter of time before he approaches you.
- "Once he does, don't freak out! If you're nervous talking about yourself, just ask him questions about himself. Trust me, it's his favourite topic.
- "If things get awkward, don't start gabbing about your mother's blind cat. Collect yourself and joke about the situation. Humour is the ultimate ice-breaker."
Next month I have a wedding. It will be the first function I've attended alone in almost a decade. Instead of being fearful, I've decided I'm going to channel Cameron Diaz. Dancing alone will never have looked so good…
Oh, and in case you're wondering if men really are that useful at all, I've put together a list of things that they really are useful for (orgasms not included!):
* Assembling things from Ikea
* Carrying heavy items
* Foot massages
* Cuddles
* Sundays – the loneliest day of the week
* Bringing you chicken soup when you're sick
* Borrowing their car when yours is at the panel beaters
* Deflecting creepy blokes at bars who try to crack on to you
* Being a date at your cousin's wedding
And just in case you're still wondering … no I'm not a man-hater, a man-eater or a man-dependent woman … I'm just trying to work out how much of a role they should really play in a single girl's life … especially when some of them don't even pay for dinner on the first date …
The Freebie: a good way to spice up a relationship?
Amy fears her relationship is in trouble. She's been with her man for more than a decade and, while everything is hunky dory (well sort of), it's suddenly dawned on her that she's never going to see another man naked … ever again.
It's not that she actually wants to see any one man's naked butt in particular, but it's more about the fear that her beau may just be the last man she's ever going to sleep with. This wouldn't be such a bad thing if it weren't that he's also the second man she's ever been with. Which makes her magic number a whopping big "two".
Was she missing out? Did she not play around enough before she settled down? Was something perhaps missing from her relationship… that she might never discover?
While many singletons out there complain incessantly about being lonely, bored and horny, long-term couples don't always have it so easy either. There's the issue of toxic in-laws, mismatched libidos, the threat of infidelity, the fear of falling out of love and of course, the toilet-seat conundrum.
And then there's that niggling thought at the back of many a twosome's mind, which makes them wonder just how it would feel to have those butterflies and first-time hanky panky jitters being conjured up all over again … with someone else other than their partner.
What if there was a way? What if you could solve all your relationship issues and get the spark back into your union, simply by doing one tiny little thing?
The new film The Freebie, seems to provide an answer that might actually be satisfying to some: what if a couple decides that after many, many years of being together, it would be a good idea to give their partner a "freebie"? That is giving them one night off from the relationship in order to shag someone else, just to ensure that they don't feel hard done by in the bedroom department?
Now before you jump down my throat and tell me what a ludicrous notion this all is, I'm with you. I'm sure that, in real life, such a thing would never successfully occur (although I bet the blokes reading this now are contemplating suggesting it to their wives). Nevertheless, the film does pose an interesting question.
So here it goes: if a couple, like the central couple in the film who have been together for seven years, now find themselves faced with a marriage devoid of spicy sex and kinky moments, what is the solution? A guilt-free freebie? And if it's granted, can such an arrangement ever really work?
Not according to the myriad loyal readers who all seem to be vehemently against the idea.
Reader Tash says there's no hope in hell; Ben says if a partner suggests it, they can leave immediately; and Marone says that a freebie would destroy a relationship forever.
Eddy says that one freebie is often followed by two, then three, then four … and Marie says that if a man is in love he shouldn't even be thinking of sex with another woman, let alone being able to envision his partner doing it with another bloke.
But here's my question: how many people do you need to sleep with to be satisfied that your partner's is going to be the last naked body you're ever going to see?
And, if a freebie isn't the way to salvage a long-term union gone sour, then what is? A romantic holiday for two? How about having "one night off" from sleeping under the same roof, as Mr Big suggested to Carrie in the second Sex and the City film? What about dressing up in naughty costumes? Or starting to implement a "date night"?
Or ... perhaps there are some relationships that are simply unsalvageable no matter what solution you try. But, if so, how do you know when to call it quits, or when to just bloody well give them a freebie, because it would hurt less than losing them for good ...
It's not that she actually wants to see any one man's naked butt in particular, but it's more about the fear that her beau may just be the last man she's ever going to sleep with. This wouldn't be such a bad thing if it weren't that he's also the second man she's ever been with. Which makes her magic number a whopping big "two".
Was she missing out? Did she not play around enough before she settled down? Was something perhaps missing from her relationship… that she might never discover?
While many singletons out there complain incessantly about being lonely, bored and horny, long-term couples don't always have it so easy either. There's the issue of toxic in-laws, mismatched libidos, the threat of infidelity, the fear of falling out of love and of course, the toilet-seat conundrum.
And then there's that niggling thought at the back of many a twosome's mind, which makes them wonder just how it would feel to have those butterflies and first-time hanky panky jitters being conjured up all over again … with someone else other than their partner.
What if there was a way? What if you could solve all your relationship issues and get the spark back into your union, simply by doing one tiny little thing?
The new film The Freebie, seems to provide an answer that might actually be satisfying to some: what if a couple decides that after many, many years of being together, it would be a good idea to give their partner a "freebie"? That is giving them one night off from the relationship in order to shag someone else, just to ensure that they don't feel hard done by in the bedroom department?
Now before you jump down my throat and tell me what a ludicrous notion this all is, I'm with you. I'm sure that, in real life, such a thing would never successfully occur (although I bet the blokes reading this now are contemplating suggesting it to their wives). Nevertheless, the film does pose an interesting question.
So here it goes: if a couple, like the central couple in the film who have been together for seven years, now find themselves faced with a marriage devoid of spicy sex and kinky moments, what is the solution? A guilt-free freebie? And if it's granted, can such an arrangement ever really work?
Not according to the myriad loyal readers who all seem to be vehemently against the idea.
Reader Tash says there's no hope in hell; Ben says if a partner suggests it, they can leave immediately; and Marone says that a freebie would destroy a relationship forever.
Eddy says that one freebie is often followed by two, then three, then four … and Marie says that if a man is in love he shouldn't even be thinking of sex with another woman, let alone being able to envision his partner doing it with another bloke.
But here's my question: how many people do you need to sleep with to be satisfied that your partner's is going to be the last naked body you're ever going to see?
And, if a freebie isn't the way to salvage a long-term union gone sour, then what is? A romantic holiday for two? How about having "one night off" from sleeping under the same roof, as Mr Big suggested to Carrie in the second Sex and the City film? What about dressing up in naughty costumes? Or starting to implement a "date night"?
Or ... perhaps there are some relationships that are simply unsalvageable no matter what solution you try. But, if so, how do you know when to call it quits, or when to just bloody well give them a freebie, because it would hurt less than losing them for good ...
Saturday, September 18, 2010
A classy exit to a one-night stand
I often think that men don't give a toss. That they don't call because they don't want to. That they don't put the toilet seat down because they don't want to (and claim that it should be up all the time and that women should be the ones to put it up once we're done). That they don't call your mum on her birthday because they don't want to. That they don't remember your anniversary because they simply don't care.
But occasionally I get a tiny insight from a man that shows me they actually do give a toss, but they just don't know how to show it.
Because, if a man shows he cares about a woman's feelings, he fears she'll get all googley eyed on him and then demand they be in a relationship, that he put a ring on her finger, that they move in together for a life of domestic bliss and that he declare his undying love before she's through with her dessert.
Case in point is the tale of Hank, who says that, after a recent one-night, he actually does care what she thinks but isn't sure how to break the news to her that he just wants to engage in a bit of casual late-night nookie (he says she's not "relationship material"), while he searches for Mrs Right on the side.
It's been a few days since the hook-up and he has yet to give her a call. Why? Because he's scared. You see, while she's indicated she wants a relationship with him, he's just happy to see her for sex.
"Is it bad," he asks, "to hang on to a girl just for sex, knowing I don't really want a relationship? Should I be straight up and tell her that I like having sex ... but I don't want to be in a relationship? And could this lead to a 'friend with benefits' situation? And is that really the solution?"
Having been on the tail end of a relationship with a dude who wasn't ever into me but only after one thing (yet never having had the decency to let me know until it was too late), I told Hank that he should be honest and upfront with her from the start.
That if he wants to see her again, he should tell her that he's only after something casual and that if she's OK with that then they can continue to see each other. But if she wants something more, then they should call it quits before she's running around deciphering his text messages and planning the wedding.
When I told my psychiatrist friend Dr T my solution to Hank's problem, he told me that, even though it all sounds good in theory, the trouble with women is that, despite what a man might tell them, they still think they can "change" him. If the woman acquiesces to his wants and needs, he might turn around one day and decide that she is girlfriend material. That he does want a relationship with her.
"What women do is they look for the smallest sign that a guy might be into her," explains Dr T. "So he'll open the car door for her or text her something and all of a sudden she's saying: 'Wow, he opened the car door for me! He must really like me!' When in reality he might do that for every girl. But, nevertheless, she starts daydreaming about the guy and conjuring up all these fantasies about him and he's not even there! So she'll build a relationship in her head based on a fantastical version of the person and think she's in love. But she's not really in love because the other person wasn't even there - it was only her!"
Put your hands up if you've found yourself in that situation. Me too. The technical term for it is "parataxic distortion" – the psychiatric term (according to Wikipedia) which is used to explain "the inclination to skew perceptions of others based on fantasy".
Women are notorious fantasy jumpers. Why we do it so often, I have no bloody idea. All I know is that it's a dangerous game we play in our heads, which leads us down a treacherous path of no return as we flitter around and around in circles over some guy who, in reality, might not be that into us. It's funny that, while women are notorious for being good listeners, when it comes to hearing what men say, we suddenly go mightily deaf.
I once had a guy tell me he was dating another woman and could no longer be friends with me. I didn't hear his words. I simply assumed that if I showed him what great girlfriend material I was, he'd dump her and come running into my arms. How wrong I was.
My girlfriend played a similar game when her ex told her he'd like to see her for her birthday, despite the fact he'd dumped her for no reason and was now in a relationship with someone else. So she ditched all her friends and waited patiently at home, all dolled up and heady with excitement for the reunion. He never showed up.
It's weird that we sit and wait for some dude who we think might be "the one" to call us, show us he cares and remember our birthday, when in fact the real "one" would be doing those things without the excuses of a lost mobile phone, a car breaking down or the fact he "fell asleep" when he was supposed to be picking us up.
Perhaps next time we should listen more carefully to a man's actual words and stay out of our heads. And instead of wasting all our time fantasy jumping, we should aim to live well, look hot and meet someone new. Who does actually call when he says he will …
What do you think?
PS. On the flip-side, when a man wants a relationship and a woman does not, does she give a toss about his feelings? Or use him for sex without his knowledge? Has that ever happened to you or is it an unlikely scenario?
But occasionally I get a tiny insight from a man that shows me they actually do give a toss, but they just don't know how to show it.
Because, if a man shows he cares about a woman's feelings, he fears she'll get all googley eyed on him and then demand they be in a relationship, that he put a ring on her finger, that they move in together for a life of domestic bliss and that he declare his undying love before she's through with her dessert.
Case in point is the tale of Hank, who says that, after a recent one-night, he actually does care what she thinks but isn't sure how to break the news to her that he just wants to engage in a bit of casual late-night nookie (he says she's not "relationship material"), while he searches for Mrs Right on the side.
It's been a few days since the hook-up and he has yet to give her a call. Why? Because he's scared. You see, while she's indicated she wants a relationship with him, he's just happy to see her for sex.
"Is it bad," he asks, "to hang on to a girl just for sex, knowing I don't really want a relationship? Should I be straight up and tell her that I like having sex ... but I don't want to be in a relationship? And could this lead to a 'friend with benefits' situation? And is that really the solution?"
Having been on the tail end of a relationship with a dude who wasn't ever into me but only after one thing (yet never having had the decency to let me know until it was too late), I told Hank that he should be honest and upfront with her from the start.
That if he wants to see her again, he should tell her that he's only after something casual and that if she's OK with that then they can continue to see each other. But if she wants something more, then they should call it quits before she's running around deciphering his text messages and planning the wedding.
When I told my psychiatrist friend Dr T my solution to Hank's problem, he told me that, even though it all sounds good in theory, the trouble with women is that, despite what a man might tell them, they still think they can "change" him. If the woman acquiesces to his wants and needs, he might turn around one day and decide that she is girlfriend material. That he does want a relationship with her.
"What women do is they look for the smallest sign that a guy might be into her," explains Dr T. "So he'll open the car door for her or text her something and all of a sudden she's saying: 'Wow, he opened the car door for me! He must really like me!' When in reality he might do that for every girl. But, nevertheless, she starts daydreaming about the guy and conjuring up all these fantasies about him and he's not even there! So she'll build a relationship in her head based on a fantastical version of the person and think she's in love. But she's not really in love because the other person wasn't even there - it was only her!"
Put your hands up if you've found yourself in that situation. Me too. The technical term for it is "parataxic distortion" – the psychiatric term (according to Wikipedia) which is used to explain "the inclination to skew perceptions of others based on fantasy".
Women are notorious fantasy jumpers. Why we do it so often, I have no bloody idea. All I know is that it's a dangerous game we play in our heads, which leads us down a treacherous path of no return as we flitter around and around in circles over some guy who, in reality, might not be that into us. It's funny that, while women are notorious for being good listeners, when it comes to hearing what men say, we suddenly go mightily deaf.
I once had a guy tell me he was dating another woman and could no longer be friends with me. I didn't hear his words. I simply assumed that if I showed him what great girlfriend material I was, he'd dump her and come running into my arms. How wrong I was.
My girlfriend played a similar game when her ex told her he'd like to see her for her birthday, despite the fact he'd dumped her for no reason and was now in a relationship with someone else. So she ditched all her friends and waited patiently at home, all dolled up and heady with excitement for the reunion. He never showed up.
It's weird that we sit and wait for some dude who we think might be "the one" to call us, show us he cares and remember our birthday, when in fact the real "one" would be doing those things without the excuses of a lost mobile phone, a car breaking down or the fact he "fell asleep" when he was supposed to be picking us up.
Perhaps next time we should listen more carefully to a man's actual words and stay out of our heads. And instead of wasting all our time fantasy jumping, we should aim to live well, look hot and meet someone new. Who does actually call when he says he will …
What do you think?
PS. On the flip-side, when a man wants a relationship and a woman does not, does she give a toss about his feelings? Or use him for sex without his knowledge? Has that ever happened to you or is it an unlikely scenario?
Monday, September 13, 2010
An affair with a prostitute
I'm mightily perplexed. While another day shown yet another sordid tale of another philandering sporting pro whose pandering wife is willing to quickly forgive her cheating bloke, this tale is a little different.
This one involves English footballer Wayne Rooney (who is no David Beckham in the looks department) who has recently had sex with another woman (or two ... at the same time) behind his pregnant wife's back. And here's where the confusion lies. To him, the fact that he did the dirty on his partner of 12 years was reportedly "no big deal".
Why? Because as Rooney said, he didn't do it with one of his wife's friends, his teammates misses or someone he had feelings. Oh no. He did it with a prostitute – just for the sex. Nothing more, nothing less.
So a man risks his career, his marriage and his reputation all for what? Because by the sounds of the reports, the sex was hardly anything to write home about either with words being thrown around such as "seedy" and "boring".
The funny (albeit sad) part of this sordid tale is that everyone around Rooney has different ideas of right versus wrong. Rooney's camp says it was just a simple case of "boys being boys". His cousin Natalie took to her Facebook page to say that she'd lost respect for him because "other footballers have girls begging to have sex with them … He pays for it."
And the prostitute herself, Jennifer Thompson, (known as "Juci Jen" in football circles – no mystery there as to why), seems to be the only one giving him a little lesson in morality when she refused to go back to his house while his pregnant wife was away.
As she told the News Of the World: "As far as I'm concerned, paying a girl to have sex with you is one thing. Paying a girl to come back to your marital home when your pregnant missus is out is taking it a step too far ... to make that decision to do it in your house, I thought that was a bit much. You're really bringing your dirty washing home, aren't you?"
His wife, after all this, has declared that she still loves him. That she still wants him in her life. That she's willing to stand by him (even if his teammates won't.) "This is the man I should be with," she said. Really?
I'm sure by now you're wondering a load of things: why pay for sex when you are young, rich, famous and have hundreds of nearly nude women throwing themselves at you on a regular basis? Is paying for it a forgivable offence? Should his wife forgive him as she's reportedly about to do? And if she does, is that really such a bad thing considering she now has a child, a home and a life with the bloke she's long been in love with? Or are you of the opinion that no man should be allowed to get away with it ... no matter how famous or wealthy or "in love" with him you purport to be?
It seems that for many women, when love and/or kids are involved, nothing will stop them from forgiving the men who have given it all to them and from turning a blind eye to the problems the man has caused them.
A case in point is the news I received when I sat down with a group of single guys over beers at the weekend. When I told them that I was working on this story, they told me that most of their friends who are married with kids are cheating on their wives.
"It's true," they said. "We see it." While I wasn't sure whether or not to believe them (I assume they were also trying to chat up my cute blonde girlfriend at the same time), what was most surprisingly to me was they admitted that, while everyone else seems to know exactly what's going on, their women turn a blind eye.
"I'm sure their wives know it. They have to be able to sense it," said one. "It's unavoidable," said another. "At least 60 per cent of men cheat."
"I reckon that number is more like 75 per cent," chimed in a third.
So, if what they say is true, why do the men do it? Is it because they "settled" for the wrong woman or because the sex fizzles as happens in many relationships and they have to get it elsewhere?
And worse – why do so many single (desperate) women decide to go against their sisterhood and engage in a romp with a man sporting a wedding ring and a baby seat in his car?
"Oh that's an easy one. Women love married men," the first man told me. "It's because there's no commitment involved, but they get some form of emotional connection anyway and that satisfies them. For men, it's just sex. A simple transaction."
However, according to many women, sex for the sake of just having sex is still counted as an affair. Yep, according to a recent Gallop poll, 35 per cent of women say it's worse for a husband to pay to have sex with prostitutes; 34 per cent say it is worse for a husband to carry on a romantic extramarital affair and 27 per cent volunteer that both are equally bad.
As for the biggest mystery of all – why do married men do it when they can get sex in their own backyard? If one follows the theory of Sigmund Freud, then it's symptomatic of the "madonna/whore syndrome". Freud coined the term as a way to explain the way men divide women into two types – their good-girl wives and mothers of their children, and the overtly erotic, uninhibited and available "prostitutes" who are good for one thing only.
The theory goes that men choose one type to marry, the other type to sleep with on the side and that everyone should be happy with the arrangement.
Perhaps a better solution might be for more wives to act more "erotic" and "uninhibited" with their husbands if they want to prevent their men from straying.
Or perhaps it's simply in a man's DNA to get some elsewhere. Or maybe they just don't give a toss. Either way, should women who are betrayed really take their men back? Or do they just not give a toss either and turn a blind eye to it all?
This one involves English footballer Wayne Rooney (who is no David Beckham in the looks department) who has recently had sex with another woman (or two ... at the same time) behind his pregnant wife's back. And here's where the confusion lies. To him, the fact that he did the dirty on his partner of 12 years was reportedly "no big deal".
Why? Because as Rooney said, he didn't do it with one of his wife's friends, his teammates misses or someone he had feelings. Oh no. He did it with a prostitute – just for the sex. Nothing more, nothing less.
So a man risks his career, his marriage and his reputation all for what? Because by the sounds of the reports, the sex was hardly anything to write home about either with words being thrown around such as "seedy" and "boring".
The funny (albeit sad) part of this sordid tale is that everyone around Rooney has different ideas of right versus wrong. Rooney's camp says it was just a simple case of "boys being boys". His cousin Natalie took to her Facebook page to say that she'd lost respect for him because "other footballers have girls begging to have sex with them … He pays for it."
And the prostitute herself, Jennifer Thompson, (known as "Juci Jen" in football circles – no mystery there as to why), seems to be the only one giving him a little lesson in morality when she refused to go back to his house while his pregnant wife was away.
As she told the News Of the World: "As far as I'm concerned, paying a girl to have sex with you is one thing. Paying a girl to come back to your marital home when your pregnant missus is out is taking it a step too far ... to make that decision to do it in your house, I thought that was a bit much. You're really bringing your dirty washing home, aren't you?"
His wife, after all this, has declared that she still loves him. That she still wants him in her life. That she's willing to stand by him (even if his teammates won't.) "This is the man I should be with," she said. Really?
I'm sure by now you're wondering a load of things: why pay for sex when you are young, rich, famous and have hundreds of nearly nude women throwing themselves at you on a regular basis? Is paying for it a forgivable offence? Should his wife forgive him as she's reportedly about to do? And if she does, is that really such a bad thing considering she now has a child, a home and a life with the bloke she's long been in love with? Or are you of the opinion that no man should be allowed to get away with it ... no matter how famous or wealthy or "in love" with him you purport to be?
It seems that for many women, when love and/or kids are involved, nothing will stop them from forgiving the men who have given it all to them and from turning a blind eye to the problems the man has caused them.
A case in point is the news I received when I sat down with a group of single guys over beers at the weekend. When I told them that I was working on this story, they told me that most of their friends who are married with kids are cheating on their wives.
"It's true," they said. "We see it." While I wasn't sure whether or not to believe them (I assume they were also trying to chat up my cute blonde girlfriend at the same time), what was most surprisingly to me was they admitted that, while everyone else seems to know exactly what's going on, their women turn a blind eye.
"I'm sure their wives know it. They have to be able to sense it," said one. "It's unavoidable," said another. "At least 60 per cent of men cheat."
"I reckon that number is more like 75 per cent," chimed in a third.
So, if what they say is true, why do the men do it? Is it because they "settled" for the wrong woman or because the sex fizzles as happens in many relationships and they have to get it elsewhere?
And worse – why do so many single (desperate) women decide to go against their sisterhood and engage in a romp with a man sporting a wedding ring and a baby seat in his car?
"Oh that's an easy one. Women love married men," the first man told me. "It's because there's no commitment involved, but they get some form of emotional connection anyway and that satisfies them. For men, it's just sex. A simple transaction."
However, according to many women, sex for the sake of just having sex is still counted as an affair. Yep, according to a recent Gallop poll, 35 per cent of women say it's worse for a husband to pay to have sex with prostitutes; 34 per cent say it is worse for a husband to carry on a romantic extramarital affair and 27 per cent volunteer that both are equally bad.
As for the biggest mystery of all – why do married men do it when they can get sex in their own backyard? If one follows the theory of Sigmund Freud, then it's symptomatic of the "madonna/whore syndrome". Freud coined the term as a way to explain the way men divide women into two types – their good-girl wives and mothers of their children, and the overtly erotic, uninhibited and available "prostitutes" who are good for one thing only.
The theory goes that men choose one type to marry, the other type to sleep with on the side and that everyone should be happy with the arrangement.
Perhaps a better solution might be for more wives to act more "erotic" and "uninhibited" with their husbands if they want to prevent their men from straying.
Or perhaps it's simply in a man's DNA to get some elsewhere. Or maybe they just don't give a toss. Either way, should women who are betrayed really take their men back? Or do they just not give a toss either and turn a blind eye to it all?
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Woman's perfect body or perfect sex partner in bed?
Another day, another bloody survey telling us what men deem "beautiful" when it comes to women. This time it's a study done in New Zealand, which discovered that apparently blokes find women with a waist-to-hip ratio of 0.7 most appealing. Yep, it's this magic number that makes men stop, stare, go googly eyed, and dream of Jessica Alba.
The magic ratio number came about when anthropologist Barnaby Dixson gave a group of volunteers various pictures of a woman in which her bust, waist and hips had been digitally altered. The men were then asked to rate the image for attractiveness while infra-red cameras tracked their eyes as they looked at the photos. He then looked at what waist-hip-ratio scored the highest marks and voila – it was a whopping 0.7. (Sounds like an awful lot of fuss to me for such a simple answer.)
But here's the catch: while the male gaze is often analysed, questioned and attempted to be rationalised by scientists, psychologists, plastic surgeons, celebrities, gossip rags and bra manufacturers, let's take a look at a real life scenario for just a moment.
A male friend of mine, who a few years back was dating one of these "perfect" 0.7 femmes, dumped her to search for greener pastures. (It wasn't her looks that put an end to it, but the amount of money and time she spent to maintain them that got him riled.) After the break-up he headed overseas and found the woman of his dreams – a little shorter, a little plumper and her hip-to-waist ratio was more non-existent than a flawless 0.7.
What I'm about to say next might shock and awe anthropologist Dixson (and perhaps even lampoon his findings), but my mate has never been happier … without his 0.7 girlfriend by his side. The thing that drew him most to his new fiancee (aside from her bubbly personality, ambition and strong family values) was this simple fact: apparently she's damn good in bed.
"She's so confident with her body that it's such a turn-on," he told me. "Often pretty girls with great bodies are really shy when it comes to getting between the sheets."
Finally there's good news up ahead ladies: according to real blokes it doesn't actually matter what you look like naked or what your hip-to-waist ratio is, it's how you feel about yourself that counts.
To get more details and to assure you that I'm not pulling your leg on this one, I decided to call up sex therapist Bettina Arndt to get some answers, and she gave me exactly what I was looking for.
"Those surveys that purport to tell us what get a man's juices going using different pictures and scans are all a load of rubbish," she says. "It has nothing to do with real life."
To get the real scoop on what men want from their sexual relationships, including what they think of a woman's body, Arndt convinced 150 men to keep diaries of their thoughts for her latest book What Men Want – In Bed. And, no surprise – it wasn't the perfect ratio of waist-to-hip on their brains … but sex … and being able to enjoy their partner's naked bodies.
"Sex is centre stage for most men – it's a pulsating life force," Arndt tells me. "For so many men, it's the itch that never goes away."
When I ask her about the merits of having the perfect waist-to-hip ratio, she laughs it off.
"Men wrote so beautifully to me about how they love looking at their women naked no matter what her body looks like. One man glowingly writes about his 80-year-old wife and how much he adores looking at her naked. Others write of the delight they get from the visual element of sex. Simply feasting their eyes on a woman's naked body is such a treat for a man - they don't really care about the details."
Try convincing the average woman of that! In fact, it saddens me greatly that so many women are so quick to judge themselves on their bodies. Take one girlfriend, who says she refuses even to go on dates until she loses a little more weight. She's been using the same line for almost a year.
Another hates having sex with her partner because she fears he's judging her love handles.
I sent both these women a paragraph from page 21 of Arndt's book, which was written by James, a 50-year-old man about his wife Sophie. It reads:
"She has the tummy of a woman in her forties that has had a few children but I don't mind that at all. She has the beginnings of varicose veins, her neck is a bit saggy, her bum is flat and so. None of that matters to me. The unfortunate thing for me is that she can't seem to enjoy my attentions and she usually wants the lights out during sex. I tell her all the time how beautiful she is and how much I love to look at her - but she rarely lets me look at her in a sexual way.”
True, men are sex-driven Neanderthals, and, yes, many of them are visual creatures who like nothing more than to wolf-whistle at the hottest babe who walks past them while they drink their beer and talk about sport. And yes, 47 per cent of them will glance at a woman's breasts before looking at any other part of her body.
But what I wish more women would believe (and more men would prove to us is true), is a brilliant line out of the film Eat, Pray, Love which was said by Julia Roberts while encouraging her friend to eat another fatty delicacy in Italy. I'm paraphrasing here but I think it went something along the lines of this: Has any guy ever seen your naked body and turned you away from sex? I didn't think so …
What do you think?
The magic ratio number came about when anthropologist Barnaby Dixson gave a group of volunteers various pictures of a woman in which her bust, waist and hips had been digitally altered. The men were then asked to rate the image for attractiveness while infra-red cameras tracked their eyes as they looked at the photos. He then looked at what waist-hip-ratio scored the highest marks and voila – it was a whopping 0.7. (Sounds like an awful lot of fuss to me for such a simple answer.)
But here's the catch: while the male gaze is often analysed, questioned and attempted to be rationalised by scientists, psychologists, plastic surgeons, celebrities, gossip rags and bra manufacturers, let's take a look at a real life scenario for just a moment.
A male friend of mine, who a few years back was dating one of these "perfect" 0.7 femmes, dumped her to search for greener pastures. (It wasn't her looks that put an end to it, but the amount of money and time she spent to maintain them that got him riled.) After the break-up he headed overseas and found the woman of his dreams – a little shorter, a little plumper and her hip-to-waist ratio was more non-existent than a flawless 0.7.
What I'm about to say next might shock and awe anthropologist Dixson (and perhaps even lampoon his findings), but my mate has never been happier … without his 0.7 girlfriend by his side. The thing that drew him most to his new fiancee (aside from her bubbly personality, ambition and strong family values) was this simple fact: apparently she's damn good in bed.
"She's so confident with her body that it's such a turn-on," he told me. "Often pretty girls with great bodies are really shy when it comes to getting between the sheets."
Finally there's good news up ahead ladies: according to real blokes it doesn't actually matter what you look like naked or what your hip-to-waist ratio is, it's how you feel about yourself that counts.
To get more details and to assure you that I'm not pulling your leg on this one, I decided to call up sex therapist Bettina Arndt to get some answers, and she gave me exactly what I was looking for.
"Those surveys that purport to tell us what get a man's juices going using different pictures and scans are all a load of rubbish," she says. "It has nothing to do with real life."
To get the real scoop on what men want from their sexual relationships, including what they think of a woman's body, Arndt convinced 150 men to keep diaries of their thoughts for her latest book What Men Want – In Bed. And, no surprise – it wasn't the perfect ratio of waist-to-hip on their brains … but sex … and being able to enjoy their partner's naked bodies.
"Sex is centre stage for most men – it's a pulsating life force," Arndt tells me. "For so many men, it's the itch that never goes away."
When I ask her about the merits of having the perfect waist-to-hip ratio, she laughs it off.
"Men wrote so beautifully to me about how they love looking at their women naked no matter what her body looks like. One man glowingly writes about his 80-year-old wife and how much he adores looking at her naked. Others write of the delight they get from the visual element of sex. Simply feasting their eyes on a woman's naked body is such a treat for a man - they don't really care about the details."
Try convincing the average woman of that! In fact, it saddens me greatly that so many women are so quick to judge themselves on their bodies. Take one girlfriend, who says she refuses even to go on dates until she loses a little more weight. She's been using the same line for almost a year.
Another hates having sex with her partner because she fears he's judging her love handles.
I sent both these women a paragraph from page 21 of Arndt's book, which was written by James, a 50-year-old man about his wife Sophie. It reads:
"She has the tummy of a woman in her forties that has had a few children but I don't mind that at all. She has the beginnings of varicose veins, her neck is a bit saggy, her bum is flat and so. None of that matters to me. The unfortunate thing for me is that she can't seem to enjoy my attentions and she usually wants the lights out during sex. I tell her all the time how beautiful she is and how much I love to look at her - but she rarely lets me look at her in a sexual way.”
True, men are sex-driven Neanderthals, and, yes, many of them are visual creatures who like nothing more than to wolf-whistle at the hottest babe who walks past them while they drink their beer and talk about sport. And yes, 47 per cent of them will glance at a woman's breasts before looking at any other part of her body.
But what I wish more women would believe (and more men would prove to us is true), is a brilliant line out of the film Eat, Pray, Love which was said by Julia Roberts while encouraging her friend to eat another fatty delicacy in Italy. I'm paraphrasing here but I think it went something along the lines of this: Has any guy ever seen your naked body and turned you away from sex? I didn't think so …
What do you think?
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Can women really have it all- minus the guilt?
Modern women are in trouble. Or at least it seems that way. You see, over the past week I've spent my spare time moonlighting as a spray-tanning technician (the things I do for research!).
And while most women seem to trust me with their deepest, darkest secrets (as long as I agree to their warning "only if it doesn't end up in a column"), there's something a little different about what women will divulge when they are standing in front of me stark naked … while I'm wielding a spray-tan gun.
During the week I got to listen to stories ranging from break-ups to first-date nerves to bad bikini waxes to affairs to girl-on-girl tensions.
Yet the most poignant issue that emerged for me was from two women in their 30s – both of whom are struggling to fall pregnant because they waited too long, according to their doctors.
"Women spend half their lives trying to avoid being pregnant, and then the next half trying to fall pregnant," the first woman told me quietly. At 34, she and her husband had been struggling for years to conceive. And while it wasn't taking a toll on their relationship ("We're a team and he's so supportive ... I'm very lucky," she said), she looked exhausted and forlorn.
"That's why we're taking a trip to Mexico," she said as I sprayed her body a golden hue. "We're hoping a relaxing time will help us through."
The second woman had a similar tale of woe but, when it came to her man, she wasn't so lucky. The stress of it all had sabotaged what they had together and now, at 36, she's newly divorced, single and wondering what life is really all about.
"All those hours spent at the office till 4am getting deals done and climbing the corporate ladder, and for what? I look back and wonder if any of it was actually worth it."
Both of these women spent their 20s running themselves into the ground for their careers. And both, now in their 30s, feel it's actually got them nowhere but a little financial independence and an abundance of designer dresses.
"All my hard work means nothing now that I look back," the first woman told me. "I think women were given a false sense of what it meant to achieve over the past decade. We were encouraged to get into the office and stay there for as long as possible. No one told us that delaying kids might have rampant ramifications."
The debate surrounding modern women who are leaving it too late to have children has intensified over the years. While we were once told to get out of the kitchen and into the boardroom, now we're being told to get out of the boardroom and back into the bedroom as soon as possible.
"Your eggs will dry up!" they now tell us. "Modern women are leaving babies too late!" the headlines yell. And the stats back it up.
Of course waiting until there's a substantial income, a substantial relationship and a substantial yearning before thinking of having a child is fair enough. And it's not exactly our faults either. We are no longer getting married as young, the men are less likely to want to settle down early (what with the abundance of choice and opportunities presented to them on a silver platter without commitment), and many people favour travelling, freedom, work/life balance and their careers over motherhood and dirty nappies.
But is the price of female achievement not being able to conceive, coupled with loneliness, a ticking biological clock, failed relationships and a life suddenly seeming superfluous?
Sadly, many social commentators think so. Economist Sylvia Ann Hewlett and author of Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children, said, "The more successful the woman, the less likely it is she will find a husband or bear a child."
In her book she surveyed women ranging in ages to find that 55 per cent of 35-year-old career women were childless, leading her to conclude this: "The rule of thumb seems to be that the more successful the woman, the less likely it is she will find a husband or bear a child. For men, the reverse is true."
So what's the solution? As modern women, should we give up our careers sooner to concentrate on starting a family? Find a man, settle down sooner and stop being so choosy?
To gutsy career women Bianca Dye who advises young women to ditch thinking they can have it all. "You can't. And that's alright! Just don't be so career driven that you turn around at my age (37!) and think 'crikey... Hold on... I DO want a family!'"
While she admits that she's hopeful that she'll still have have, she wants young women to be careful not to leave it too late. "I'm looking into freezing my eggs because I'm so scared I'll miss out. All my best friends are having or have had kids. And I ache for kids myself!"
And while most women seem to trust me with their deepest, darkest secrets (as long as I agree to their warning "only if it doesn't end up in a column"), there's something a little different about what women will divulge when they are standing in front of me stark naked … while I'm wielding a spray-tan gun.
During the week I got to listen to stories ranging from break-ups to first-date nerves to bad bikini waxes to affairs to girl-on-girl tensions.
Yet the most poignant issue that emerged for me was from two women in their 30s – both of whom are struggling to fall pregnant because they waited too long, according to their doctors.
"Women spend half their lives trying to avoid being pregnant, and then the next half trying to fall pregnant," the first woman told me quietly. At 34, she and her husband had been struggling for years to conceive. And while it wasn't taking a toll on their relationship ("We're a team and he's so supportive ... I'm very lucky," she said), she looked exhausted and forlorn.
"That's why we're taking a trip to Mexico," she said as I sprayed her body a golden hue. "We're hoping a relaxing time will help us through."
The second woman had a similar tale of woe but, when it came to her man, she wasn't so lucky. The stress of it all had sabotaged what they had together and now, at 36, she's newly divorced, single and wondering what life is really all about.
"All those hours spent at the office till 4am getting deals done and climbing the corporate ladder, and for what? I look back and wonder if any of it was actually worth it."
Both of these women spent their 20s running themselves into the ground for their careers. And both, now in their 30s, feel it's actually got them nowhere but a little financial independence and an abundance of designer dresses.
"All my hard work means nothing now that I look back," the first woman told me. "I think women were given a false sense of what it meant to achieve over the past decade. We were encouraged to get into the office and stay there for as long as possible. No one told us that delaying kids might have rampant ramifications."
The debate surrounding modern women who are leaving it too late to have children has intensified over the years. While we were once told to get out of the kitchen and into the boardroom, now we're being told to get out of the boardroom and back into the bedroom as soon as possible.
"Your eggs will dry up!" they now tell us. "Modern women are leaving babies too late!" the headlines yell. And the stats back it up.
Of course waiting until there's a substantial income, a substantial relationship and a substantial yearning before thinking of having a child is fair enough. And it's not exactly our faults either. We are no longer getting married as young, the men are less likely to want to settle down early (what with the abundance of choice and opportunities presented to them on a silver platter without commitment), and many people favour travelling, freedom, work/life balance and their careers over motherhood and dirty nappies.
But is the price of female achievement not being able to conceive, coupled with loneliness, a ticking biological clock, failed relationships and a life suddenly seeming superfluous?
Sadly, many social commentators think so. Economist Sylvia Ann Hewlett and author of Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children, said, "The more successful the woman, the less likely it is she will find a husband or bear a child."
In her book she surveyed women ranging in ages to find that 55 per cent of 35-year-old career women were childless, leading her to conclude this: "The rule of thumb seems to be that the more successful the woman, the less likely it is she will find a husband or bear a child. For men, the reverse is true."
So what's the solution? As modern women, should we give up our careers sooner to concentrate on starting a family? Find a man, settle down sooner and stop being so choosy?
To gutsy career women Bianca Dye who advises young women to ditch thinking they can have it all. "You can't. And that's alright! Just don't be so career driven that you turn around at my age (37!) and think 'crikey... Hold on... I DO want a family!'"
While she admits that she's hopeful that she'll still have have, she wants young women to be careful not to leave it too late. "I'm looking into freezing my eggs because I'm so scared I'll miss out. All my best friends are having or have had kids. And I ache for kids myself!"
Friday, September 3, 2010
The Mating Game in the 21st Century
"Money and Sex: The Mating Game in the 21st Century!" screamed a headline from the online newspaper The Huffington Post the other day. Eager to see what the big fuss was all about, I clicked on the article but was quick to discover that it wasn't exactly as newsworthy as I had expected.
"Men look at women as sex objects; women look at men as success objects," declared B.J. Gallagher, the writer of the story. Yawn. Not this old argument again?
Gallagher continued: "Women like men who are generous with money; men like women who are generous in bed. A man fantasizes about a woman who'll rock his world in the sack; a woman fantasizes about a man who'll rock her world at Tiffany's. Both genders are looking for love ... For him, nothing says 'I love you' like good sex; for her, nothing says 'I love you' like financial security."
While I'm pretty sure Gallagher would like to have believed she was indeed making a colossal statement about the state of affairs pertaining to relationships in the 21st century, Dr Louann Brizendine, author of the bestselling books The Male Brain and The Female Brain (thankfully someone's finally attempted to give us a scientific explanation of the differences in our behaviours!) says none of this money and sex stuff is remotely innovative.
To find out more (and hopefully put a temporary end to the battle of the sexes in this column). After all, haven't men wanted sex and women wanted money for centuries? Surely there was something a little deeper to it all? After speaking to her, I quickly discovered that indeed there was.
Brizendine explained that the female and male brains are very similar when they start out. "That is up until we're about eight weeks old when tiny testicles in the male start pumping out huge amounts of testosterone. This, then, marinates in his brain and increases the area of his brain in the hypothalamus, which scientists have dubbed 'the area for sexual pursuit'."
She explained that, while women have this area in their brains too, the one in males runs on 10 times more testosterone than that of the female brain … throughout a man's entire life.
So here's the scoop – if men even get a glimpse of a hot woman walking towards them on the pavement (even if they're enjoying a romantic meal with their hot girlfriend or wife at the time), their brains will automatically tell them to swivel around and take a good hard look. And all this occurs within one-fifth of a second of spotting a sexy woman who isn't their partner.
"It will take them one-fifth of a second to register whether she is sexually hot or not, and whether or not she is worth pursuing," Brizendine said.
But hold on gents – this isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card to perve on every woman who passes you by while your poor partner sits and ruminates over the lack of attention you're giving her. Oh no. Brizendine says this "man trance" (as she's dubbed it), happens on an unconscious level and, once it becomes conscious, it's time to swivel right back and stare deeply into your own babe's eyes.
"After one or two more seconds, once the conscious level is reached, he can put on the brakes. He can snap out of it once it reaches a level of consciousness. It's not a free pass for men but rather an activity in self-control."
So what's a gal to do?
Well says Brizendine, there's plenty. And it all starts with sex. And making him wait. For a minimum of two weeks, to be exact.
"I call it the 'two-week rule'," she said. "It takes two weeks for the human brain to make or break a new habit. So, if you want to become a habit to a guy, you have to be in his thoughts for two weeks and the way to do that is to not have sex with him for two weeks. And then at least you've got a chance of keeping his interest."
Oh yes, that old chestnut rearing its sexual head again: make a dude wait and you'll have him for all eternity. But before you jump down my throat for saying so (once again!), Brizendine swears to me that this theory is deeply embedded in the male brain. And yes, despite the modern go-girl attitude that will attempt to pretend this doesn't occur, it's actually a very real phenomenon.
"Males biologically are looking for women with a good reputation. It works this way because he wants to know that she'll be sexually faithful to him in the long run to ensure that her kids are biologically his." (By the way, in case you missed it, a shocking fact recently emerged that a whopping one in 25 fathers are unknowingly not raising their own biological children.)
"So if a woman sleeps with a man on the first night, even though she says it's an exception, biologically he won't believe her because the best predicator of future behaviour is past behaviour. Hence his "area of sexual pursuit" will make him decide to move on and find someone else. So the way to hold a man's interest is to let him know other things about you before you have sex with him so that he doesn't only have sex on his brain when he's with you.
As for the issue of women wanting men for their money? Surprise, surprise - it's our brains again that are hardwired to want this. Brizendine said: "Biologically, women are attracted to and need a strong man. They are hardwired to want a man who has financial resources because they need someone to support their offspring."
While men often complain to me that they think they'll never get a partner because they don't have enough money, perhaps I truly can't give them an answer, since the desire is actually in the female brain.
But one thing is for certain. When it comes to our brains, Brizendine has one caution: "Men have an area in their brain for sexual pursuit that needs to be used. Don't fool yourself otherwise" ...
What do you think?
Have a great weekend and happy dating!
"Men look at women as sex objects; women look at men as success objects," declared B.J. Gallagher, the writer of the story. Yawn. Not this old argument again?
Gallagher continued: "Women like men who are generous with money; men like women who are generous in bed. A man fantasizes about a woman who'll rock his world in the sack; a woman fantasizes about a man who'll rock her world at Tiffany's. Both genders are looking for love ... For him, nothing says 'I love you' like good sex; for her, nothing says 'I love you' like financial security."
While I'm pretty sure Gallagher would like to have believed she was indeed making a colossal statement about the state of affairs pertaining to relationships in the 21st century, Dr Louann Brizendine, author of the bestselling books The Male Brain and The Female Brain (thankfully someone's finally attempted to give us a scientific explanation of the differences in our behaviours!) says none of this money and sex stuff is remotely innovative.
To find out more (and hopefully put a temporary end to the battle of the sexes in this column). After all, haven't men wanted sex and women wanted money for centuries? Surely there was something a little deeper to it all? After speaking to her, I quickly discovered that indeed there was.
Brizendine explained that the female and male brains are very similar when they start out. "That is up until we're about eight weeks old when tiny testicles in the male start pumping out huge amounts of testosterone. This, then, marinates in his brain and increases the area of his brain in the hypothalamus, which scientists have dubbed 'the area for sexual pursuit'."
She explained that, while women have this area in their brains too, the one in males runs on 10 times more testosterone than that of the female brain … throughout a man's entire life.
So here's the scoop – if men even get a glimpse of a hot woman walking towards them on the pavement (even if they're enjoying a romantic meal with their hot girlfriend or wife at the time), their brains will automatically tell them to swivel around and take a good hard look. And all this occurs within one-fifth of a second of spotting a sexy woman who isn't their partner.
"It will take them one-fifth of a second to register whether she is sexually hot or not, and whether or not she is worth pursuing," Brizendine said.
But hold on gents – this isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card to perve on every woman who passes you by while your poor partner sits and ruminates over the lack of attention you're giving her. Oh no. Brizendine says this "man trance" (as she's dubbed it), happens on an unconscious level and, once it becomes conscious, it's time to swivel right back and stare deeply into your own babe's eyes.
"After one or two more seconds, once the conscious level is reached, he can put on the brakes. He can snap out of it once it reaches a level of consciousness. It's not a free pass for men but rather an activity in self-control."
So what's a gal to do?
Well says Brizendine, there's plenty. And it all starts with sex. And making him wait. For a minimum of two weeks, to be exact.
"I call it the 'two-week rule'," she said. "It takes two weeks for the human brain to make or break a new habit. So, if you want to become a habit to a guy, you have to be in his thoughts for two weeks and the way to do that is to not have sex with him for two weeks. And then at least you've got a chance of keeping his interest."
Oh yes, that old chestnut rearing its sexual head again: make a dude wait and you'll have him for all eternity. But before you jump down my throat for saying so (once again!), Brizendine swears to me that this theory is deeply embedded in the male brain. And yes, despite the modern go-girl attitude that will attempt to pretend this doesn't occur, it's actually a very real phenomenon.
"Males biologically are looking for women with a good reputation. It works this way because he wants to know that she'll be sexually faithful to him in the long run to ensure that her kids are biologically his." (By the way, in case you missed it, a shocking fact recently emerged that a whopping one in 25 fathers are unknowingly not raising their own biological children.)
"So if a woman sleeps with a man on the first night, even though she says it's an exception, biologically he won't believe her because the best predicator of future behaviour is past behaviour. Hence his "area of sexual pursuit" will make him decide to move on and find someone else. So the way to hold a man's interest is to let him know other things about you before you have sex with him so that he doesn't only have sex on his brain when he's with you.
As for the issue of women wanting men for their money? Surprise, surprise - it's our brains again that are hardwired to want this. Brizendine said: "Biologically, women are attracted to and need a strong man. They are hardwired to want a man who has financial resources because they need someone to support their offspring."
While men often complain to me that they think they'll never get a partner because they don't have enough money, perhaps I truly can't give them an answer, since the desire is actually in the female brain.
But one thing is for certain. When it comes to our brains, Brizendine has one caution: "Men have an area in their brain for sexual pursuit that needs to be used. Don't fool yourself otherwise" ...
What do you think?
Have a great weekend and happy dating!
Monday, August 30, 2010
Is it a big deal when a guy asks you to spend the night?
What's the big deal about "spending the night"? Well, plenty. To be honest, I'm sick to death of men assuming that just because they've paid for your dinner, told you they like your hair and offered to take you to a trip, you will go back to their place … that night. "Just to talk," they'll tell you.
"Just to cuddle," they'll beseech. "Just to tickle your back." Bollocks.
"Oh that's the line I always use," my womanising pal J told me the other night.
I was asking him about this kind of behaviour that I'd noticed repeatedly from men who'd asked me out, and wondered if every man under the sun asked the same question.
And if so, what's their real intention? Did they really only ask you out on a date to have you come back to their abode? Surely they can't all assume that we're all that dumb?
"Not every man asks that," J snapped. "Just the ones who think they can get some."
But here's the thing: J says that, more times than not, the men actually succeed. "There are so many girls out there willing to do that, it becomes sort of a game. And if we're just out to have some fun, we think, why waste time on ones who won't?"
Great. My girlfriends told me I was harping on about nothing. That it was because I usually wear short skirts (I don't own anything below the knee), tight dresses and heels to rival Victoria Beckham that I put the wrong message out to the men I date.
"You need to wear something a little less … revealing," my girlfriends finally told me. "And stop being so gushy too. You don't have to try so hard to make them like you. They should be trying to get your attention. Not the other way around."
What about the women who fail the male test? Is it really that big a deal if they decide - just once - to go up and see the view from his window?
"It's about putting a value on yourself and knowing what's going to happen without being naive," says my girlfriend Donna, who is a dating expert and author of Never Trust a Man in Alligator Loafers.
"When you are spending four to six hours in skin-to-skin contact with someone, all of a sudden your body starts wanting sex, not just your mind. And it's really hard to say no. Every hour you spend skin to skin, all the reasons not to go out the window."
She also says that the morning-after syndrome is very real. "When you wake up and your mascara is run, your feet hurt from the heels you wore, and you look at each other and hardly recognise one another, the fantasy is gone. You're thinking that he's seen you naked and yet you don't even know how to spell his last name."
Right. Either way, no one told me this dating stuff was going to be so bloody darn difficult. And confusing. And that there'd be so many freaking rules. Whatever happened to just "being yourself"? I guess that must have gone the way of VHR machines and Chris Brown's reputation.
But c'mon blokes (and I'm not only talking to the players out there), what happened to basking in the ability to get to know one another? What happened to waxing poetically about your similarities and laughing off your differences? Sharing an intimate kiss at the end of a delectable evening together before embracing goodnight and making plans to see each other… another time? Seriously… are all men the same? Or just the ones I meet?
After analysing the situation, seeking advice from the experts, weighing up the possible responses and deciding on what to do, when it happened for the fifth time in a row, I was finally prepared.
"You should see the view from my apartment," a first date recently asked during dessert. "It's amazinggggg."
"Oh, I'd really love to…" I oozed cheerfully, before adding, "but maybe another time."
While that answer certainly managed to shut him up, I'm quite sure it put me into the no-second-date category, but I didn't give a toss. Surely there must be some blokes out there who are willing to take a woman out without an expectation at the end of the night? Not even "just to cuddle" as they so eloquently put it?
Why do we bother? Is it really that important to find a partner? Why can't we just be happy by ourselves for all eternity? I was thinking the same thing, believe me.
To get answers, an interview with Helen Fisher while she was recently in New York. (The trip was supposed to bring me a summer fling, help me get over my break-up and heal my broken heart in the way Julia Roberts's character Elizabeth Gilbert was able to in the film Eat, Pray, Love. Sure I ate loads, dated loads (there is never a shortage of people wanting to hook you up with their friends) and drank my weight in vodka. (What else are you supposed to do on a boring date?)
But I certainly didn't fall in love. Rather, all this frolicking about in search of something made me crave the safety, familiarity and the chivalrous way my ex-boyfriend treated me. Of course I wanted to see his bloody apartment at the end of the night – I lived in it!
In case you haven't heard of Fisher, she's the brilliant woman behind recent research into dating and relationships from the Rutgers University in New Jersey, and also the author of Why Him, Why Her?
First question to her was this: do we really all need love? And if so, why?
"We need it for evolutionary reasons," she explained. "We all have three powerful brain systems that drive us to find a partner: our sex drive, the need for romantic love and the yearning for attachment – all necessary for the ultimate goal that has been our goal for millions of years: reproduction. We are a species that exists to form pair-bonds with the opposite sex to have babies."
She explained the purpose of each brain system: sex drive is to try people out. Romantic love enables us to focus our mating energy on one person at a time. And the yearning for attachment is what sustains us together to rear children as a team. "Those who didn't fall in love and just had sex wandered off, had fewer children and died out. It wasn't the best choice."
(She also said that love doesn't last forever and that research done in 58 societies found that divorce is most common in the fourth year of marriage after a couple has stayed together to raise a child through infancy.)
So why all the casual sex? According to Fisher, and a recent study, we're all just kidding ourselves.
"A study found that 50 per cent of women and 52 per cent of men actually had a one-night stand with the hope of creating a longer-lasting relationship." The study also found that a third of one-night-stands end up in relationships after all.
Hmm. Perhaps a "cuddle" at the end of a date isn't so bad after all ...
"Just to cuddle," they'll beseech. "Just to tickle your back." Bollocks.
"Oh that's the line I always use," my womanising pal J told me the other night.
I was asking him about this kind of behaviour that I'd noticed repeatedly from men who'd asked me out, and wondered if every man under the sun asked the same question.
And if so, what's their real intention? Did they really only ask you out on a date to have you come back to their abode? Surely they can't all assume that we're all that dumb?
"Not every man asks that," J snapped. "Just the ones who think they can get some."
But here's the thing: J says that, more times than not, the men actually succeed. "There are so many girls out there willing to do that, it becomes sort of a game. And if we're just out to have some fun, we think, why waste time on ones who won't?"
Great. My girlfriends told me I was harping on about nothing. That it was because I usually wear short skirts (I don't own anything below the knee), tight dresses and heels to rival Victoria Beckham that I put the wrong message out to the men I date.
"You need to wear something a little less … revealing," my girlfriends finally told me. "And stop being so gushy too. You don't have to try so hard to make them like you. They should be trying to get your attention. Not the other way around."
What about the women who fail the male test? Is it really that big a deal if they decide - just once - to go up and see the view from his window?
"It's about putting a value on yourself and knowing what's going to happen without being naive," says my girlfriend Donna, who is a dating expert and author of Never Trust a Man in Alligator Loafers.
"When you are spending four to six hours in skin-to-skin contact with someone, all of a sudden your body starts wanting sex, not just your mind. And it's really hard to say no. Every hour you spend skin to skin, all the reasons not to go out the window."
She also says that the morning-after syndrome is very real. "When you wake up and your mascara is run, your feet hurt from the heels you wore, and you look at each other and hardly recognise one another, the fantasy is gone. You're thinking that he's seen you naked and yet you don't even know how to spell his last name."
Right. Either way, no one told me this dating stuff was going to be so bloody darn difficult. And confusing. And that there'd be so many freaking rules. Whatever happened to just "being yourself"? I guess that must have gone the way of VHR machines and Chris Brown's reputation.
But c'mon blokes (and I'm not only talking to the players out there), what happened to basking in the ability to get to know one another? What happened to waxing poetically about your similarities and laughing off your differences? Sharing an intimate kiss at the end of a delectable evening together before embracing goodnight and making plans to see each other… another time? Seriously… are all men the same? Or just the ones I meet?
After analysing the situation, seeking advice from the experts, weighing up the possible responses and deciding on what to do, when it happened for the fifth time in a row, I was finally prepared.
"You should see the view from my apartment," a first date recently asked during dessert. "It's amazinggggg."
"Oh, I'd really love to…" I oozed cheerfully, before adding, "but maybe another time."
While that answer certainly managed to shut him up, I'm quite sure it put me into the no-second-date category, but I didn't give a toss. Surely there must be some blokes out there who are willing to take a woman out without an expectation at the end of the night? Not even "just to cuddle" as they so eloquently put it?
Why do we bother? Is it really that important to find a partner? Why can't we just be happy by ourselves for all eternity? I was thinking the same thing, believe me.
To get answers, an interview with Helen Fisher while she was recently in New York. (The trip was supposed to bring me a summer fling, help me get over my break-up and heal my broken heart in the way Julia Roberts's character Elizabeth Gilbert was able to in the film Eat, Pray, Love. Sure I ate loads, dated loads (there is never a shortage of people wanting to hook you up with their friends) and drank my weight in vodka. (What else are you supposed to do on a boring date?)
But I certainly didn't fall in love. Rather, all this frolicking about in search of something made me crave the safety, familiarity and the chivalrous way my ex-boyfriend treated me. Of course I wanted to see his bloody apartment at the end of the night – I lived in it!
In case you haven't heard of Fisher, she's the brilliant woman behind recent research into dating and relationships from the Rutgers University in New Jersey, and also the author of Why Him, Why Her?
First question to her was this: do we really all need love? And if so, why?
"We need it for evolutionary reasons," she explained. "We all have three powerful brain systems that drive us to find a partner: our sex drive, the need for romantic love and the yearning for attachment – all necessary for the ultimate goal that has been our goal for millions of years: reproduction. We are a species that exists to form pair-bonds with the opposite sex to have babies."
She explained the purpose of each brain system: sex drive is to try people out. Romantic love enables us to focus our mating energy on one person at a time. And the yearning for attachment is what sustains us together to rear children as a team. "Those who didn't fall in love and just had sex wandered off, had fewer children and died out. It wasn't the best choice."
(She also said that love doesn't last forever and that research done in 58 societies found that divorce is most common in the fourth year of marriage after a couple has stayed together to raise a child through infancy.)
So why all the casual sex? According to Fisher, and a recent study, we're all just kidding ourselves.
"A study found that 50 per cent of women and 52 per cent of men actually had a one-night stand with the hope of creating a longer-lasting relationship." The study also found that a third of one-night-stands end up in relationships after all.
Hmm. Perhaps a "cuddle" at the end of a date isn't so bad after all ...
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
At The Boys' Club: Scary Girlfriend Behaviors
Clingy. High maintenance. Pushing boundaries. Mates with her ex. It seems that while we're often preoccupied in this column with naming and shaming the myriad douchebag behaviours of men - such as bonking and fleeing (without a phone call), doing a Tiger Woods on their wives (OK, so perhaps not that extreme but you get the picture), or quite simply forgetting to pick up their socks off the floor (you'd be surprised at how catty some women can get when smelly laundry is involved) - we forget about the things women do to upset men.
For years I thought that, once you met the man of your dreams, stopped playing text message games and actually agreed to settle down together, playing the role of "girlfriend" would be the easy part.
After all, ask any singleton and they'll be quick to snort that finding a man in the first place is the tough part thanks to the "man drought", rampant casual sex and commitment-phobic blokes who toss you aside like a used piece of gum.
I thought that, once you were officially the girlfriend, you could let down your hair, wipe off that sticky lip gloss (which men secretly hate), start hanging out in your sweat pants and ugg boots and everything would be hunky dory, chocolate dipped strawberries and sensual foot massages for all eternity. Surely it should get easier from thereon in … right? Apparently not ...
I'm often stopped in the streets by people begging me to listen to their relationship conundrums. Whether they're single, married, de facto, dating, booty-call bonking – whatever – I'm often shocked, sometimes traumatised and always amused to discover some of the bad behaviour that occurs within seemingly happy relationships that look perfect from the outside.
But what recently had me bamboozled is something I discovered about the fairer sex and their behaviour when the initial courtship wears off.
I was first made aware of this when my gay hairdresser friend regaled me with stories about a few of his female clients – all smart, professional, gorgeous career women – who had been exhibiting a certain decorum (or rather lack thereof) towards the gents they'd been seeing before they promptly got dumped.
This sort of behaviour is known as SGB, or Scary Girlfriend Behaviour.
"These women don't understand that they got dumped because they are just too difficult to deal with," he warned me.
"Single girls these days need to come across as being low maintenance as possible and easy to be around – especially in long-term relationships. Because, trust me, I see it all the time; the men who are stuck in relationships with women who are impossible to please will quickly start looking for a way out."
This got me thinking about some of my own awful SGB. My latest memory is of the time I got drunk at my best girlfriend's 30th birthday party and ended up staying out until four in the morning. Which is all well and fine, but the following day my boyfriend at the time had organised a surprise romantic getaway together for our monthsarry. (I ended up stuck in bed for the entire trip.)
And that wasn't the only case. I think back and realise that I often put my girlfriends before my man, was away for work on his birthday (twice) and was too busy with my own life to worry about making much effort in his.
But according to a recent story for male web portal Ask Men, my behaviour isn't as bad as some can get. There's stalking, introducing herself to his family and friends behind his back, getting a key to his house made without him knowing, getting physical when arguing, and the top SGB trait - not letting him break up with her.
A gent who I spoke to the other night was in the opposite predicament. He told me that, while he recently got dumped by a girl for being "too nice", (what she really meant was that he might have been displaying personality traits of a beta male), he wished he would have had the guts to dump her first, considering she displayed first class symptoms of SGB.
When I asked him why the heck he didn't do something about it at the time, and how in the world he let it go on for an entire year, he told me this:
"I'm a tyrant in the office. I pull up my team constantly on their S#$%. But with her, and with women in general, I just can't do it. I'm a nice guy. It's just not me."
Are women any better at pulling at the male bad behaviour? Or do we always give the guy another shot?
In the past few months, I've heard (and lived through) some horror stories with men and have decided that, since so many women are so darn desperate for a man, they're actually slightly more forgiving than the blokes when it comes to scary boyfriend (or first date) behaviour.
In case you're wondering what the men have done oh-so-wrong, here's a list I've compiled of some pretty bad blokey behaviour that I've recently witnessed. And all the women who've experienced any of it ... have all gone back for second helpings ...
* Telling you you're being immature for not sleeping with him after two weeks of dating.
* Pretending there's an after-party at his house to get you back to his empty room.
* Finding another woman's toothbrush in his bathroom … AFTER you've slept with him.
* Ringing his mate in front of you and saying: "She's made it quite clear she isn't going to put out so I'll meet you at the Commodore Bar in fifteen."
* Conveniently forgetting his wallet after asking you out for dinner and choosing the priciest restaurant in the city.
* Telling you that he's deciding between you and another girl ... with topless pictures of her to prove it.
For years I thought that, once you met the man of your dreams, stopped playing text message games and actually agreed to settle down together, playing the role of "girlfriend" would be the easy part.
After all, ask any singleton and they'll be quick to snort that finding a man in the first place is the tough part thanks to the "man drought", rampant casual sex and commitment-phobic blokes who toss you aside like a used piece of gum.
I thought that, once you were officially the girlfriend, you could let down your hair, wipe off that sticky lip gloss (which men secretly hate), start hanging out in your sweat pants and ugg boots and everything would be hunky dory, chocolate dipped strawberries and sensual foot massages for all eternity. Surely it should get easier from thereon in … right? Apparently not ...
I'm often stopped in the streets by people begging me to listen to their relationship conundrums. Whether they're single, married, de facto, dating, booty-call bonking – whatever – I'm often shocked, sometimes traumatised and always amused to discover some of the bad behaviour that occurs within seemingly happy relationships that look perfect from the outside.
But what recently had me bamboozled is something I discovered about the fairer sex and their behaviour when the initial courtship wears off.
I was first made aware of this when my gay hairdresser friend regaled me with stories about a few of his female clients – all smart, professional, gorgeous career women – who had been exhibiting a certain decorum (or rather lack thereof) towards the gents they'd been seeing before they promptly got dumped.
This sort of behaviour is known as SGB, or Scary Girlfriend Behaviour.
"These women don't understand that they got dumped because they are just too difficult to deal with," he warned me.
"Single girls these days need to come across as being low maintenance as possible and easy to be around – especially in long-term relationships. Because, trust me, I see it all the time; the men who are stuck in relationships with women who are impossible to please will quickly start looking for a way out."
This got me thinking about some of my own awful SGB. My latest memory is of the time I got drunk at my best girlfriend's 30th birthday party and ended up staying out until four in the morning. Which is all well and fine, but the following day my boyfriend at the time had organised a surprise romantic getaway together for our monthsarry. (I ended up stuck in bed for the entire trip.)
And that wasn't the only case. I think back and realise that I often put my girlfriends before my man, was away for work on his birthday (twice) and was too busy with my own life to worry about making much effort in his.
But according to a recent story for male web portal Ask Men, my behaviour isn't as bad as some can get. There's stalking, introducing herself to his family and friends behind his back, getting a key to his house made without him knowing, getting physical when arguing, and the top SGB trait - not letting him break up with her.
A gent who I spoke to the other night was in the opposite predicament. He told me that, while he recently got dumped by a girl for being "too nice", (what she really meant was that he might have been displaying personality traits of a beta male), he wished he would have had the guts to dump her first, considering she displayed first class symptoms of SGB.
When I asked him why the heck he didn't do something about it at the time, and how in the world he let it go on for an entire year, he told me this:
"I'm a tyrant in the office. I pull up my team constantly on their S#$%. But with her, and with women in general, I just can't do it. I'm a nice guy. It's just not me."
Are women any better at pulling at the male bad behaviour? Or do we always give the guy another shot?
In the past few months, I've heard (and lived through) some horror stories with men and have decided that, since so many women are so darn desperate for a man, they're actually slightly more forgiving than the blokes when it comes to scary boyfriend (or first date) behaviour.
In case you're wondering what the men have done oh-so-wrong, here's a list I've compiled of some pretty bad blokey behaviour that I've recently witnessed. And all the women who've experienced any of it ... have all gone back for second helpings ...
* Telling you you're being immature for not sleeping with him after two weeks of dating.
* Pretending there's an after-party at his house to get you back to his empty room.
* Finding another woman's toothbrush in his bathroom … AFTER you've slept with him.
* Ringing his mate in front of you and saying: "She's made it quite clear she isn't going to put out so I'll meet you at the Commodore Bar in fifteen."
* Conveniently forgetting his wallet after asking you out for dinner and choosing the priciest restaurant in the city.
* Telling you that he's deciding between you and another girl ... with topless pictures of her to prove it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)