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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)