![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Okay, here goes - I'm tearing the lid off of the can of worms. Specifically one particular societal idea that seems to be entrenched in the collective imagination, one of those niggling little battles of the supposed 'war between the sexes' where you can't figure out quite what caused the damn thing. If you read on, please also follow the link the Questionable Content comic, it hits the nail on the head.
Mary was a martyr
Mary must have been a martyr
'Cause her God in all his wisdom couldn't look her in the eye
So he took her and he left her with some jackass in a stable
While he bragged about his conquest to the other holy guys
Okay, so we had/have women's lib, and we've proven to ourselves and everyone else that we can think, work our asses off, and support ourselves and families, should we choose to have them. This political movement is often tied with sexual freedom societal movements - ie, we can not only work and think, but we're allowed to enjoy sex now, too (hot damn!). But all this is old news, yah? Not quite. As a psychological revolutions go, it's a huge one, and it's taken it's own sweet time about playing out the aftermath, good and bad (expect more on that eventually, esp. as regards employment and education). We have new-feminist lectures on one side and my mormon roomie who wants nothing more than to support a family and kids on the other, and will still staunchly argue that that is what women are for.
you say
it's nothing
like true
romances
it's true
romance is
not all
it's said
to be
Well, funny, somehow we're still working on the old version of romance in a way that doesn't work with freedom at all. You can just have fun - but for some bizarre reason, you're supposed to be on the look out that someone else isn't trying to just have fun with you. WTF? We often hear what we should avoid. Stereotypes about commitmen-phobic bachelors (Hell, I am one, I know the type!), the guy who 'just' wants you for your body. Add to that the psychological fears - he 'just' wants you to lean on, for emotional support. Maybe you're even being used for conversation! And of course, since we're liberated now, all that can apply to women too. Some chics at least have fallen for the iea that that is how power works, how you are supposed to behave - that you should proactivley start 'using' guys before they 'use' you. It's all just a footrace.
Wait a minute...two people using each other for sex, conversation, emotional support...er, does that sound like a normal, healthy relationship to you? Why, yes, it kinda does! Granted, we use 'giving each other' rather than 'using each other'. But still, something fishy is going on here.
Now, what are we supposed to look for?
They were married in the summer
And they honeymooned in Europe
And they settled down near Denver
And they hardly said a word
They had two point seven children
And a palace in the suburbs
And their's is the saddest story that I've ever heard
Well, commitment, faithfulness, patience...but wait. What if you're a girl like me, monoamorous enough to want fidelity in the short term, commitment-phobic enough to leave tire marks when I hear the word marriage? (This is really impressive since I don't own a car).
My old roomie, Priscilla, heard me talking about how charming guys were in Europe, and said "Yes, but you never know! They can be really charming, but that's only because they want to ask you out!" Um, okay. Is there something wrong with that? Where are we going to dinner? Your place or mine?
You pull no punches
You need a damsel in distress
you play your hunches
who'll be a virgin more-or-less
I've heard about these people. Have any of us really met them? I know that there are some people with a score card out there, touting up their deflowerings and notching their bed posts, but not nearly as many as we somehow think there are. Most guys are as earnestly hopeful and confused as the gals I chat with. Yet we, guys and gals, keep jumping at shadows, absolutely certain that it's a contest and that somehow we're being had. That when we say something about this guy or that guy (or girl, or whoever) the listeners will spew a collective "What, they fooled YOU too? I thouht you were smarter than that." Trophy wives/husbands happen, but most of us find life confusing enough without giving up a chance at happiness in order to social climb.
Brilliant Questionable Content Comic
To be fair, yeah, I've been in a fairly nasty, one-sided, 'used' relationship. I left the guy. In the long run, the only bad thing he did to me was waste my time. Several months ago I was asking myself these paranoid questions. Was I being an easy tourist (remember, sometimes this was just lunch)? But wait, wasn't I enjoying myself? And, since I admit I don't want long -term anything, isn't that the point? So everything's ducky! Maybe I'm a 'target', a young american chic who doesn't speak much of the language, but if both parties enjoy themselves, no harm done, and that's what's really important.
you shave
you shower
it's such a packaging ploy
you crave the power that comes from being a boy.
But there isn't any, really. Not any more than there's some dark mysterious power in being a woman. How you act, not what you are - I'm strongly tempted with 'It's not what you got, it's how you use it here, but well, that's flippant, and we know I'm NEVER flippant. :)
I suppose what it all boils down to is honesty and reciprocity/mutuality. As long as you're fairly open about what you're going for, and those goals coincide, it doesn't matter what they are - dinner, one-night stand, one-year stand, marriage, artificial hip-to-hip conjoining...or as someone pointed out to me 'Donner et recevoir le plaisir...c'est tout'. The important bit is that both 'to give' and 'to receive' are in there, and let's stop all this petty 'it's just about this' and 'being used for that' crap.
Very well, there might be later installments, and I realise I'm at least in part preaching to the choir and going over old ground, but I'm going to go back to the little home I built in my soapbox now.
Mary was a martyr
Mary must have been a martyr
'Cause her God in all his wisdom couldn't look her in the eye
So he took her and he left her with some jackass in a stable
While he bragged about his conquest to the other holy guys
Okay, so we had/have women's lib, and we've proven to ourselves and everyone else that we can think, work our asses off, and support ourselves and families, should we choose to have them. This political movement is often tied with sexual freedom societal movements - ie, we can not only work and think, but we're allowed to enjoy sex now, too (hot damn!). But all this is old news, yah? Not quite. As a psychological revolutions go, it's a huge one, and it's taken it's own sweet time about playing out the aftermath, good and bad (expect more on that eventually, esp. as regards employment and education). We have new-feminist lectures on one side and my mormon roomie who wants nothing more than to support a family and kids on the other, and will still staunchly argue that that is what women are for.
you say
it's nothing
like true
romances
it's true
romance is
not all
it's said
to be
Well, funny, somehow we're still working on the old version of romance in a way that doesn't work with freedom at all. You can just have fun - but for some bizarre reason, you're supposed to be on the look out that someone else isn't trying to just have fun with you. WTF? We often hear what we should avoid. Stereotypes about commitmen-phobic bachelors (Hell, I am one, I know the type!), the guy who 'just' wants you for your body. Add to that the psychological fears - he 'just' wants you to lean on, for emotional support. Maybe you're even being used for conversation! And of course, since we're liberated now, all that can apply to women too. Some chics at least have fallen for the iea that that is how power works, how you are supposed to behave - that you should proactivley start 'using' guys before they 'use' you. It's all just a footrace.
Wait a minute...two people using each other for sex, conversation, emotional support...er, does that sound like a normal, healthy relationship to you? Why, yes, it kinda does! Granted, we use 'giving each other' rather than 'using each other'. But still, something fishy is going on here.
Now, what are we supposed to look for?
They were married in the summer
And they honeymooned in Europe
And they settled down near Denver
And they hardly said a word
They had two point seven children
And a palace in the suburbs
And their's is the saddest story that I've ever heard
Well, commitment, faithfulness, patience...but wait. What if you're a girl like me, monoamorous enough to want fidelity in the short term, commitment-phobic enough to leave tire marks when I hear the word marriage? (This is really impressive since I don't own a car).
My old roomie, Priscilla, heard me talking about how charming guys were in Europe, and said "Yes, but you never know! They can be really charming, but that's only because they want to ask you out!" Um, okay. Is there something wrong with that? Where are we going to dinner? Your place or mine?
You pull no punches
You need a damsel in distress
you play your hunches
who'll be a virgin more-or-less
I've heard about these people. Have any of us really met them? I know that there are some people with a score card out there, touting up their deflowerings and notching their bed posts, but not nearly as many as we somehow think there are. Most guys are as earnestly hopeful and confused as the gals I chat with. Yet we, guys and gals, keep jumping at shadows, absolutely certain that it's a contest and that somehow we're being had. That when we say something about this guy or that guy (or girl, or whoever) the listeners will spew a collective "What, they fooled YOU too? I thouht you were smarter than that." Trophy wives/husbands happen, but most of us find life confusing enough without giving up a chance at happiness in order to social climb.
Brilliant Questionable Content Comic
To be fair, yeah, I've been in a fairly nasty, one-sided, 'used' relationship. I left the guy. In the long run, the only bad thing he did to me was waste my time. Several months ago I was asking myself these paranoid questions. Was I being an easy tourist (remember, sometimes this was just lunch)? But wait, wasn't I enjoying myself? And, since I admit I don't want long -term anything, isn't that the point? So everything's ducky! Maybe I'm a 'target', a young american chic who doesn't speak much of the language, but if both parties enjoy themselves, no harm done, and that's what's really important.
you shave
you shower
it's such a packaging ploy
you crave the power that comes from being a boy.
But there isn't any, really. Not any more than there's some dark mysterious power in being a woman. How you act, not what you are - I'm strongly tempted with 'It's not what you got, it's how you use it here, but well, that's flippant, and we know I'm NEVER flippant. :)
I suppose what it all boils down to is honesty and reciprocity/mutuality. As long as you're fairly open about what you're going for, and those goals coincide, it doesn't matter what they are - dinner, one-night stand, one-year stand, marriage, artificial hip-to-hip conjoining...or as someone pointed out to me 'Donner et recevoir le plaisir...c'est tout'. The important bit is that both 'to give' and 'to receive' are in there, and let's stop all this petty 'it's just about this' and 'being used for that' crap.
Very well, there might be later installments, and I realise I'm at least in part preaching to the choir and going over old ground, but I'm going to go back to the little home I built in my soapbox now.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-01-12 03:22 am (UTC)From:My aunt once said, "love is wasted on the young." She was 32 at the time... Anyway, I asked her what she meant about that, and she said, "fear."
no subject
Date: 2005-01-12 07:20 am (UTC)From:Not that, being unfearful, you should rush into places you have no desire to go. But you know that! Enough of our societal atmosphere of fear.
Also, 32 isn't that old!
no subject
Date: 2005-01-12 03:44 pm (UTC)From:On love, life and a boy
Date: 2005-01-12 06:52 am (UTC)From:Re: On love, life and a boy
Date: 2005-01-12 03:52 pm (UTC)From:There are a few others out there who've caught my eye, and I wonder what it would be like to be in a relationship with them. Ah well. Confusion is inevitable when things happen that quickly.
Re: On love, life and a boy
Date: 2005-01-13 05:51 am (UTC)From:Re: On love, life and a boy
Date: 2005-01-13 06:02 am (UTC)From:Thing is, Fenmere - a LOT of girls, I'm thinking even the majority, would appreciate a little directness. It gives one a warm fuzzy appreciated feeling, not to mention taking out some of the confusion that is so rampant already. It's a huge part of the difference - possibly the only difference - between my random dating experiences in the US (Er, nil) and in France (five offers in two days). We all like to feel wanted. Granted, girls should turn 'round and do the same thing to boys.
At the moment, of course, we're all so scared of giving the wrong impression that we don't do jack shit (and I am definatley including myself in that statment).
Re: On love, life and a boy
Date: 2005-01-14 04:26 am (UTC)From:I also emailed Kelly via myspace.com and told him if he needed a hand at the show I would be willing to help. I hope that doesnt give the wrong impresson. Or maybe I do...
no subject
Date: 2005-01-14 06:19 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2005-01-14 09:13 pm (UTC)From: