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 ...
Monday, September 27, 2010
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)