Aussie blogger, Sam de Brito, got me thinking today with his post on the 15th century tome, Malleus Maleifcarum by Heinrich Kramer. The book is basically a manual on how to determine which women are witches and how to torture and kill said witches. Today the book might seem amusing. From a historical context however its rather chilling when you stop to think of all the women who were put to death because they were suspected of witchcraft. It's even more chilling when you stop to consider what was once considered to be witchcraft.
It also gets one thinking of the historical lack of accountability many men have when it comes to sex. Men who cheated on their wives weren't to blame for cheating... It was the women with whom they cheated with. They were accused of "bewitching" these men causing them to take leave of their senses.
To some extent this mentality exists today (although, thankfully, not on the same openly hostile level it did in the 15th century) in the double standards that continue to exist between genders. Men who are attracted to younger girls are lured in by their youthful innocence. The girls are often referred to as "Lolitas" and the assumption being that they led the man astray. Older women who are attracted to younger men however are referred to as "Cougars." The term Cougar implies a predatory nature. Its as if to say the boys are lured into relationships or dalliances with older women against their will. In neither scenario is the male being held accountable for his actions. In both situations the male is portrayed as falling prey to the allure of females.
What is somewhat amusing about all of this is the huge contradiction it creates (and this is something de Brito also mentions in his post)-- Men are supposed to be strong, willful, virile... masters of our own destinies if you will. But we see a nice set of legs though and all bets are off?!
Now I'm not going to try to deny the inherent biology here. Most of us straight blokes do have a weak spot for the shielas. It's a common theme running through history going all the way back to Adam falling prey to Eve's wiles as she talked him into eating an apple from the one tree that God told him not to eat from. We see an attractive lass and common sense gets thrown out the window. For lack of a better word for this phenomenon, I believe I'll defer to the owl in Bambi -- we get "twitterpated" (and today some men get "twitterpated" in gentleman's clubs by girls named Bambi, go figure)
My issue comes not from the phenomenon or the biology behind it or even that it happens... The issue is that we still use this as an excuse, an out for a general lack of accountability. And that lack of accountability has contributed to the perpetuation of many outdated mysoginistic ideas that still bubble under the surface today.
The trouble is that there do exist the men who perpetuate the stereotype and in perpetuating the stereotype they perpetuate the lack of accountability that goes with it. We men lack self-control when it comes to the opposite sex so we need society to better police our behaviour and keep us out of situations that would cause us to lose that self control and commit crimes against women and children. Give me a break! It has come to the point where men are avoiding careers in education for fear of being viewed as predatory. Why else would a man want to be a teacher than to be around teenaged girls and/or young children? (incidentally this is another theme/issue that de Brito has tackled in his blog-- as have I.)
The reality of course is that we need one another-- men and women. We give one another balance. To tip the scales too far in either direction does our society as a whole a huge disservice. It has to start somewhere and I can't think of any better place than personal accountability. It does take "two to tango." And when it comes to crimes of passion, infidelity, and what not-- it is possible for both parties to be both equally guilty and equally innocent? It's not always a predator/prey scenario. If a man cheats on his wife, isn't it possible that he's just as guilty for "straying" as his mistress is for "leading him astray" or to turn it back to the 15th century nomenclature, for "bewitching him?"
Showing posts with label All Men Are Liars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label All Men Are Liars. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
The Marrying Type
Once again I find myself inspired by one of Sam de Brito's blog postings. In his post on doubt he raised the very good point that the common thread in all of our relationships isn't the other people, it's US! And generally all the excuses and euphenisms we give for the failure of our relationships; "we drifted apart," "we fell out of love," "a clash of differences," etc. etc.; they all boil down to an "unwillingness to change."
de Brito argues that "commitment is a switch you flip on." There is certainly some truth to that. There just comes a point in your life where the wild oats are sown and you're ready to settle down. Heck, sometimes the difference between a break-up and a marriage proposal is just a simple matter of timing. It's when that switch clicks for both parties in the relationship at roughly the same time.
Before that commitment switch clicks many of us have a tendency to cut and run when the going gets tough. We see arguments and fighting as signs of cracks in the foundation. Rather than spackle the cracks and strengthen the foundation we put the house on the market and start checking the classifieds to figure out where to start laying a new foundation.
After that switch clicks there's more of a willingness to weather the storms together. We come to realize that arguments aren't signs of weakness, but opportunities to better understand one another; opportunities to grow closer together rather than drift further apart. Getting mad at one another from time to time is natural. Because the opposite of love isn't hate, it's apathy. It takes just as much passion and energy (if not more) to hate as it does to love. And if you still have the energy to hate, you still care enough to feel enough negative energy for that other person it means you still have the same capacity to love that person. Would you really expend the energy to argue with someone you didn't care about or care for or would you just walk away?
The old adage, "what doesn't tear us apart will only make us stronger" is true. And in realizing that arguments can strengthen relationships rather than tear them apart.
Inevitably, the question shouldn't be, "Does (insert name here) make me happy?" Happiness is fleeting it will come and go multiple times in any relationship. There are going to be bad times when you're not too keen on that special someone. And if you think otherwise, you're lying to yourself.
Instead, the question should be, "When the chips are down, if everything is going wrong in my life, is there anyone else I'd rather have my back than (insert name here)?" Because a relationship shouldn't be based on something as fleeting as happiness. The happy times are easy. A relationship should be based on dependability, knowing that person will be there for you not only when the sun is shining, the birds are singing, and all is well in the world but also on your darkest and dreariest days. It should be based on knowing that you're not always going to get along and that's okay. In the end it's not about getting along all of the time, it's about realizing that those times when that special someone is driving you up the wall it's only because you're emotionally invested in not just the other person but in the relationship itself.
I'll concede much of this is based much more on observation than personal experience. I have five siblings, all of which have been married over twenty years and my parents have been married over fifty years (not to mention they were high school sweethearts before getting married). Personally, I'm a tenderfoot. My wife & I have only been married four and a half years. We're still learning as we go. I'm just putting this out there as I've seen people I care about making the same mistakes over and over in their relationships. I may be wrong but I chalk up those mistakes to cocktail of two parts bad timing with a shot of unrealistic expectations of what a relationship is supposed to be like.
de Brito argues that "commitment is a switch you flip on." There is certainly some truth to that. There just comes a point in your life where the wild oats are sown and you're ready to settle down. Heck, sometimes the difference between a break-up and a marriage proposal is just a simple matter of timing. It's when that switch clicks for both parties in the relationship at roughly the same time.
Before that commitment switch clicks many of us have a tendency to cut and run when the going gets tough. We see arguments and fighting as signs of cracks in the foundation. Rather than spackle the cracks and strengthen the foundation we put the house on the market and start checking the classifieds to figure out where to start laying a new foundation.
After that switch clicks there's more of a willingness to weather the storms together. We come to realize that arguments aren't signs of weakness, but opportunities to better understand one another; opportunities to grow closer together rather than drift further apart. Getting mad at one another from time to time is natural. Because the opposite of love isn't hate, it's apathy. It takes just as much passion and energy (if not more) to hate as it does to love. And if you still have the energy to hate, you still care enough to feel enough negative energy for that other person it means you still have the same capacity to love that person. Would you really expend the energy to argue with someone you didn't care about or care for or would you just walk away?
The old adage, "what doesn't tear us apart will only make us stronger" is true. And in realizing that arguments can strengthen relationships rather than tear them apart.
Inevitably, the question shouldn't be, "Does (insert name here) make me happy?" Happiness is fleeting it will come and go multiple times in any relationship. There are going to be bad times when you're not too keen on that special someone. And if you think otherwise, you're lying to yourself.
Instead, the question should be, "When the chips are down, if everything is going wrong in my life, is there anyone else I'd rather have my back than (insert name here)?" Because a relationship shouldn't be based on something as fleeting as happiness. The happy times are easy. A relationship should be based on dependability, knowing that person will be there for you not only when the sun is shining, the birds are singing, and all is well in the world but also on your darkest and dreariest days. It should be based on knowing that you're not always going to get along and that's okay. In the end it's not about getting along all of the time, it's about realizing that those times when that special someone is driving you up the wall it's only because you're emotionally invested in not just the other person but in the relationship itself.
I'll concede much of this is based much more on observation than personal experience. I have five siblings, all of which have been married over twenty years and my parents have been married over fifty years (not to mention they were high school sweethearts before getting married). Personally, I'm a tenderfoot. My wife & I have only been married four and a half years. We're still learning as we go. I'm just putting this out there as I've seen people I care about making the same mistakes over and over in their relationships. I may be wrong but I chalk up those mistakes to cocktail of two parts bad timing with a shot of unrealistic expectations of what a relationship is supposed to be like.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
a reflection on "The Dude On the Cereal Box"
As any of you who regularly follow this blog now know, I'm a regular follower and avid reader of Australian blogger/writer, Sam de Brito's All Men Are Liars blog. In the past his blog entries have provided inspiration or a jumping off point for some of my mental meanderings.
He had such an entry today.
And while my "wilder days" were considerably tamer than Mr. de Brito's, I found I could still relate on some level to that switch being flipped. You go through a certain chunk of your life where you're "in the now." You either don't consider the consequences of the things you choose to put in your body, or you don't care. You live your life on fast food, booze, and usually some form of "tobacco" (whether it be actual tobacco, or "wacky tobacky"). Most people go through that phase in some extreme or another.
At some point you notice others your age are drinking less, eating healthier, and/or exercising more. Deep down inside you feel a desire to "be like them." Their healthier lifestyles are more attractive to you than your gluttony, sloth, and whichever other of the 7 deadlies are present in your lifestyle repertoire. Initially you don't know how to get "there"-- to the happy healthy glow they give off. You make excuses for not doing it and realize you're still a hamster on a wheel-- going through the motions but not getting anywhere.
Many never get off the wheel, some need a little trigger (isn't that an Elvis Costello song?) to be pulled or a little switch to be flipped in their lives. My switch came in the form of a baby girl-- a daughter I want to see grow up, whose life I want to be there to witness. I want to be around long enough to be a strong compass for her-- to give her life direction... and when she's old enough, impart the wisdom of the aforementioned Sam's book No Tattoos Before You're 30:What I'll Tell My Children.
He had such an entry today.
And while my "wilder days" were considerably tamer than Mr. de Brito's, I found I could still relate on some level to that switch being flipped. You go through a certain chunk of your life where you're "in the now." You either don't consider the consequences of the things you choose to put in your body, or you don't care. You live your life on fast food, booze, and usually some form of "tobacco" (whether it be actual tobacco, or "wacky tobacky"). Most people go through that phase in some extreme or another.
At some point you notice others your age are drinking less, eating healthier, and/or exercising more. Deep down inside you feel a desire to "be like them." Their healthier lifestyles are more attractive to you than your gluttony, sloth, and whichever other of the 7 deadlies are present in your lifestyle repertoire. Initially you don't know how to get "there"-- to the happy healthy glow they give off. You make excuses for not doing it and realize you're still a hamster on a wheel-- going through the motions but not getting anywhere.
Many never get off the wheel, some need a little trigger (isn't that an Elvis Costello song?) to be pulled or a little switch to be flipped in their lives. My switch came in the form of a baby girl-- a daughter I want to see grow up, whose life I want to be there to witness. I want to be around long enough to be a strong compass for her-- to give her life direction... and when she's old enough, impart the wisdom of the aforementioned Sam's book No Tattoos Before You're 30:What I'll Tell My Children.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Reflections on life and love in literature and music
So I've been reading F. Scott Fitzgerald's debut novel, This Side of Paradise-- likely Fitzgerald's most autobiographical tome. As I'm reading about the love shared by Amory and Rosalind I'm left feeling a bit touched that Fitzgerald would give his readers such an intimate glimpse into the love he felt for Zelda as Rosalind was at least loosely based on his wife, Zelda.
But the constant in Fitzgerald's writing is a certain loss of innocence or fall from grace-- the reality of the fragility of life underneath the illusion that life is grand.
On a similar tangent, today I was reading an excellent post by Sam de Brito on the "Peter Pan syndrome"-- a certain type of guy who refuses to grow up, perpetually relieving his youth by dating college girls and going to work in jeans and ratty old Converse sneakers. de Brito makes the argument that these blokes are the ones who at one point in their lives were burned nee charred by love to the extent that the connections they seek in life tend to be casual and fleeting due to that strong a fear of getting burnt again.
He also brought up the very real potential that these Peter Pan types will end up quite alone which brought to mind a certain Harry Chapin song
Getting back to Fitzgerald, I'm left thinking-- perhaps the reason many of us don't enjoy reading the classics in high school is that we lack the emotional experience that allows us to empathize with the characters. I read Hemmigway's For Whom the Bell Tolls in high school and didn't much care for it. I read his The Sun Also Rises a few years after graduating college and absolutely loved it. On some level I could empathize with Jake Barnes in a way I'd not been able to do with Robert Jordan in high school. I hadn't yet lived enough. Both Fitzgerald and Hemmingway were able to touch on very real human emotions but only after they had steeled their emotions from the experiences in the grand adventure of life. Now with Fitzgerald, while I don't necessarily care for him, there's something about Amory Blaine that I can relate to in a way that I'd not been able to do with Nick Carraway in The Great Gatsby. Much like with For Whom the Bell Tolls I wasn't "there" yet emotionally when I read Gatsby, I had a bit more living to do (that being said, I quite enjoyed The Great Gatsby when I read it in high school-- to the point where I used to refer to my friends as "old sport" which I'm sure got old fast).
Thinking back to the books I truly did enjoy reading in high school-- Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird and John Knowles' A Separate Peace the protagonists in those books are either children or adolescents. Lee and Knowles recaptured an innocence of youth that at the time I was able to relate to in a way that felt far more familiar than Hemmingway or Fitzgerald (heck I've even gone back and re-read A Separate Peace at least 3 times since high school-- it remains a favorite of mine to this day).
But the constant in Fitzgerald's writing is a certain loss of innocence or fall from grace-- the reality of the fragility of life underneath the illusion that life is grand.
On a similar tangent, today I was reading an excellent post by Sam de Brito on the "Peter Pan syndrome"-- a certain type of guy who refuses to grow up, perpetually relieving his youth by dating college girls and going to work in jeans and ratty old Converse sneakers. de Brito makes the argument that these blokes are the ones who at one point in their lives were burned nee charred by love to the extent that the connections they seek in life tend to be casual and fleeting due to that strong a fear of getting burnt again.
He also brought up the very real potential that these Peter Pan types will end up quite alone which brought to mind a certain Harry Chapin song
"and the little manWhat is it about some of us that allows us to risk that being burnt again in the game of love where others avoid love after getting burned by its scorching intensity just once? I thought about what made me the type who was willing to risk (and inevitably experience) that pain multiple times. And I think I can trace it back to a passage I once read in one of Douglas Coupland's books. The basic idea of the passage being that the possibility of becoming numb to lows of life comes with it the opposite side of the same coin-- the risk of becoming numb to the highs of life as well. At some point I just decided that the lowest lows were worth it because they made me appreciate the highest highs that much more. Each time I got burned it just made me appreciate love that much more the next time around-- an emotional education in love if you will.
looked at the empty glass in his hand
and he smiled a crooked grin
He said, 'I guess I'm out of gin
And I know we both have been
So lonely
And if you want me to come with you
Then that's alright with me
'cause I know I'm going nowhere
and anywhere's a better place to be"-- from A Better Place to Be by Harry Chapin
Getting back to Fitzgerald, I'm left thinking-- perhaps the reason many of us don't enjoy reading the classics in high school is that we lack the emotional experience that allows us to empathize with the characters. I read Hemmigway's For Whom the Bell Tolls in high school and didn't much care for it. I read his The Sun Also Rises a few years after graduating college and absolutely loved it. On some level I could empathize with Jake Barnes in a way I'd not been able to do with Robert Jordan in high school. I hadn't yet lived enough. Both Fitzgerald and Hemmingway were able to touch on very real human emotions but only after they had steeled their emotions from the experiences in the grand adventure of life. Now with Fitzgerald, while I don't necessarily care for him, there's something about Amory Blaine that I can relate to in a way that I'd not been able to do with Nick Carraway in The Great Gatsby. Much like with For Whom the Bell Tolls I wasn't "there" yet emotionally when I read Gatsby, I had a bit more living to do (that being said, I quite enjoyed The Great Gatsby when I read it in high school-- to the point where I used to refer to my friends as "old sport" which I'm sure got old fast).
Thinking back to the books I truly did enjoy reading in high school-- Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird and John Knowles' A Separate Peace the protagonists in those books are either children or adolescents. Lee and Knowles recaptured an innocence of youth that at the time I was able to relate to in a way that felt far more familiar than Hemmingway or Fitzgerald (heck I've even gone back and re-read A Separate Peace at least 3 times since high school-- it remains a favorite of mine to this day).
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Where have all the Good Male Teachers Gone?
As many of you know from my previous postings, I'm a regular reader of Sam de Brito's All Men Are Liars blog. In de Brito's most recent entry, Where are all the male school teachers de Brito broaches a very intriguing subject-- is the relative lack of male school teachers adversely affecting society as a whole? Is the lack of positive male role models leading to dumbed down males who, due to the preponderance of female teachers, see learning as a largely "effeminate" practice or discipline?
Would having more male school teachers help curb the dumbing down of the male portion of the species?
I can't speak for anyone else, only from my own experiences, but in grade school I dreaded having male teachers (other than for Phys Ed.). They were stricter disciplinarians and ruled by a firmer hand. In hindsight I realize this was a good thing. That being said I didn't have my first male teacher until 5th grade. And he was one of the best teachers I've ever had (I'm not discounting female teachers I've had several good female teachers as well over the years as well). It's not what I learned from him when it came to reading, writing, or the sciences... It's what he taught in life lessons-- respect, honor, dignity, basic manners. For example whenever a"guest" entered the room we were taught to stand as a sign of respect. Something I don't know that many students today are taught.
I do think having a good mixture of male and female teachers as I was growing up was a very positive thing. I believe it gave me a good balance. I do encourage you to follow the link and read de Brito's original post but I am curious to hear the thoughts of others on this subject.
Would having more male school teachers help curb the dumbing down of the male portion of the species?
I can't speak for anyone else, only from my own experiences, but in grade school I dreaded having male teachers (other than for Phys Ed.). They were stricter disciplinarians and ruled by a firmer hand. In hindsight I realize this was a good thing. That being said I didn't have my first male teacher until 5th grade. And he was one of the best teachers I've ever had (I'm not discounting female teachers I've had several good female teachers as well over the years as well). It's not what I learned from him when it came to reading, writing, or the sciences... It's what he taught in life lessons-- respect, honor, dignity, basic manners. For example whenever a"guest" entered the room we were taught to stand as a sign of respect. Something I don't know that many students today are taught.
I do think having a good mixture of male and female teachers as I was growing up was a very positive thing. I believe it gave me a good balance. I do encourage you to follow the link and read de Brito's original post but I am curious to hear the thoughts of others on this subject.
Friday, February 02, 2007
On Being Neighbourly
Once again professional Aussie blogger, Sam de Brito, has posted a rather thought provoking post: Neighbours: What Are We So Afraid Of?
The basic gist is that people tend to be afraid of being neighbourly these days because they feel showing the slightest bit of neighbourliness will result in some level of obligation to that particular neighbour-- a fear that that particular neighbour could/would misconstrue casual friendliness for an open invitation into your personal life. On the flipside human beings do have some level of need for companionship and balancing out that fear of obligation in other people's lives with the desire for companionship can be a tough tightrope to walk.
In commenting on de Brito's post, I posed the question, is the popularity of social networking sites such as myspace.com or facebook.com an extension of longing for companionship mixed with this fear of becoming "obligated" to the lives of others?
I mean if you think about it, these sites offer the best of both worlds, the companionship without the obligation... For those of you who use these social networking sites, I ask you (and answer honestly here), if something bad were to happen to you and you needed a friend, how apt would you be to go knocking on the door of someone you met via that site, someone you haven't yet met in person? Probably not likely at all. And therein lies the appeal. If you're not going to go knocking on their doors when you're in need, chances are they're not going to come a knockin' on your door when they're in need-- friendship/companionship without the obligation.
To extrapolate further on this, is this just a product of our culture? Have we become so self-absorbed-- getting lost in the music from our mp3 players or talking on the cell phone while walking down the street that this fear of obligation to be friends with other people is just an extension or symptom of our culture's growing self-absorption? Have we started to render ourselves so self-absorbed that the only friendships we consider forming are ones that will be predominantly one-sided... one sided in OUR favor?
Discuss amongst yourselves...
The basic gist is that people tend to be afraid of being neighbourly these days because they feel showing the slightest bit of neighbourliness will result in some level of obligation to that particular neighbour-- a fear that that particular neighbour could/would misconstrue casual friendliness for an open invitation into your personal life. On the flipside human beings do have some level of need for companionship and balancing out that fear of obligation in other people's lives with the desire for companionship can be a tough tightrope to walk.
In commenting on de Brito's post, I posed the question, is the popularity of social networking sites such as myspace.com or facebook.com an extension of longing for companionship mixed with this fear of becoming "obligated" to the lives of others?
I mean if you think about it, these sites offer the best of both worlds, the companionship without the obligation... For those of you who use these social networking sites, I ask you (and answer honestly here), if something bad were to happen to you and you needed a friend, how apt would you be to go knocking on the door of someone you met via that site, someone you haven't yet met in person? Probably not likely at all. And therein lies the appeal. If you're not going to go knocking on their doors when you're in need, chances are they're not going to come a knockin' on your door when they're in need-- friendship/companionship without the obligation.
To extrapolate further on this, is this just a product of our culture? Have we become so self-absorbed-- getting lost in the music from our mp3 players or talking on the cell phone while walking down the street that this fear of obligation to be friends with other people is just an extension or symptom of our culture's growing self-absorption? Have we started to render ourselves so self-absorbed that the only friendships we consider forming are ones that will be predominantly one-sided... one sided in OUR favor?
Discuss amongst yourselves...
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Are men really afraid of commitment?
In a recent blog entry, Sam de Brito addressed/answered “Why your boyfriend doesn’t want to get married.” He addressed commitment-phobia and other possible reasons. But much like Sam’s blog often does, he got me to thinking… Are men really afraid of commitment? Or is it more a matter of them taking the commitment of marriage more seriously than women?
Before scoffing at such a bold concept, climb aboard my train of logic. Men generally are very results/success driven. That is to say, by and large, we like to be successful in ALL aspects of our lives-- Sports, career, life, love, marriage, family, etc. etc. With the divorce rate being as high as it is, is it really that much of a stretch to believe that men don’t want to contribute to that negative statistic? We want successful marriages and as such we’re a bit choosier, more methodical in our search for the perfect mate. If and when we commit we want to be assured of a high likelihood of success.
To extrapolate on that is the high divorce rate due to:
Couples not taking marriage seriously enough?
Couples having unrealistic expectations of what marriage should be and giving up when those marriages fail to meet their unrealistic expectations?
Divorce being far too common?
A combination of any/all of the above?
I don’t honestly believe that many guys are really that afraid of commitment, I believe it’s more a fear of failure of that commitment working out. Men do tend to be more driven by logic than emotion—it’s not a bad thing or a good thing, it’s just the way many of us are wired.
Marriage is an “investment” for us, not so much a financial one (although that still does play into it in some regards), but also a tremendous time and a rather overwhelming emotional investment. And despite divorce being so common, it’s not exactly easy to do legally or emotionally. Before making that “investment” men like to make sure—at least within reason, that their investment will be a sound one and that they’ll see a positive return on it (lifelong companionship and eventually a family). We want success we don’t want to file for “bankruptcy” (divorce) if we can at all avoid it. And I believe that is what makes men so tentative when making such an important and life-changing commitment.
Another factor in the perceived male fear of commitment is that men are generally more resistant to change than women. If things are going well, why rock the boat? Right? So if a man is happy in a relationship, things are going well—marriage is a change in that. For many yes that may be a positive change, but it’s still a change. When you pair a woman eager to enact positive change with a man who is generally resistant to change, there will be friction. I think what makes successful relationships is the realization that changes happen. You can’t force it any more than you can resist it. Once both people in a relationship realize and accept that they stop expending so much energy in trying to force change (her) or resisting change (him) and more time growing and changing together.
Thoughts, ideas, opinions? The floor is yours, discuss amongst yourselves.Wednesday, August 09, 2006
One night stands
Today I was reading one of my favorite blogs over on The Sydney Morning Herald website. The blog author, Sam de Brito was commenting on the pickle many single men of today are in. Granted, being a married man, this isn't an issue that's of direct concern to me, it's more just a curiousity.
To make a long story short (and in as close an approximation as I can get to de Brito's Aussie slang riddled writing style): one of de Brito's mates, a real good stick, had a first date with a girl. They were getting on pretty damn good and it looked like it was headed for a jersey back at his mate's pad. But Sam's mate decided he wasn't sure there was any potential for anything so he decided to go the gallant route and went home alone at about 1 am.
The next day the sheila who set up the date asked de Brito if his mate was a poof. de Brito replied that his mate wasn't looking for anything long term and didn't want to sully his reputation by going the one night stand route even though he was certainly interested in a jersey with the lass.
(does anyone feel like they need a translator?)
At any rate it raises the question-- what's a guy to do, if he goes the one-night stand route he comes off as a bit of a cad and if he goes the gallant route he comes off as being a bit of a poof.
As de Brito himself said in closing:
"you're damned if you do, and you're gay if you don't"
Being a bit of a good stick myself, I never really went the "one night stand" route (it really messed up the whole feng sui of my apartment, I really need 2 nightstands to pull the whole room together. j/k). About the closest I ever came was going the friends with benefits route with an ex-girlfriend several months after we'd split up. And even that didn't really end well. But that's beside the point. I'm more putting this out there for discussion.
If you're really interested in a special sheila and she's really interested in you but you want something more serious than a one-off with her.
Blokes: What is going through your mind? If you do the one night stand thing with her it might ruin the opportunity for something more. And if she turns out to be a right shag, you'll be hating yourself for going the quick and easy route later on. If you do the honorable thing you run the risk of sending the message that either a) you're a poof or b) you're not interested. So what's the easiest way out of this pickle? (and you thought those Physics questions about 2 trains traveling in opposite directions back in high school were difficult!)
Sheilas: What's the easiest way for a bloke to avoid this situation? And for a bloke you don't really know what message are you receiving if it ends up being a one-off? what message are you receiving if things are going really well but he ends up doing the honorable thing and going home alone to get one off the wrist instead?
Discuss amongst yourselves
Current Music: Fleetwood Mac - Go Your Own Way
To make a long story short (and in as close an approximation as I can get to de Brito's Aussie slang riddled writing style): one of de Brito's mates, a real good stick, had a first date with a girl. They were getting on pretty damn good and it looked like it was headed for a jersey back at his mate's pad. But Sam's mate decided he wasn't sure there was any potential for anything so he decided to go the gallant route and went home alone at about 1 am.
The next day the sheila who set up the date asked de Brito if his mate was a poof. de Brito replied that his mate wasn't looking for anything long term and didn't want to sully his reputation by going the one night stand route even though he was certainly interested in a jersey with the lass.
(does anyone feel like they need a translator?)
At any rate it raises the question-- what's a guy to do, if he goes the one-night stand route he comes off as a bit of a cad and if he goes the gallant route he comes off as being a bit of a poof.
As de Brito himself said in closing:
"you're damned if you do, and you're gay if you don't"
Being a bit of a good stick myself, I never really went the "one night stand" route (it really messed up the whole feng sui of my apartment, I really need 2 nightstands to pull the whole room together. j/k). About the closest I ever came was going the friends with benefits route with an ex-girlfriend several months after we'd split up. And even that didn't really end well. But that's beside the point. I'm more putting this out there for discussion.
If you're really interested in a special sheila and she's really interested in you but you want something more serious than a one-off with her.
Blokes: What is going through your mind? If you do the one night stand thing with her it might ruin the opportunity for something more. And if she turns out to be a right shag, you'll be hating yourself for going the quick and easy route later on. If you do the honorable thing you run the risk of sending the message that either a) you're a poof or b) you're not interested. So what's the easiest way out of this pickle? (and you thought those Physics questions about 2 trains traveling in opposite directions back in high school were difficult!)
Sheilas: What's the easiest way for a bloke to avoid this situation? And for a bloke you don't really know what message are you receiving if it ends up being a one-off? what message are you receiving if things are going really well but he ends up doing the honorable thing and going home alone to get one off the wrist instead?
Discuss amongst yourselves
Current Music: Fleetwood Mac - Go Your Own Way
Thursday, August 03, 2006
All Men Are Liars
Every day I get 2 daily email updates from both The Sydney Morning Herald and Melbourne's The Age. In one of those two newspapers is a daily blog by a rather clever Aussie writer, Sam de Brito. I've added de Brito's blog, All Men Are Liars, to the links on my side-bar. I've found it to be incredibly amusing and thoroughly interesting. The blog is somewhat new (only a few days old actually). So reading all of his entries is still a reasonable prospect at this point.
There are some Aussie-centric references that get lost on me, and he does use a bit of antiquated Aussie slang (by his own admission, an attempt to resurrect long-dead Aussie slang terms) that I find thoroughly enjoyable and fully intend to add to my existing lexicon (which probably only serve to confuse and infuriate my friends and family).
Being an "Oztraphile" I'll admit I am a bit biased, but despite my pro-Aussie prejudices and my overabundance of Aussie love, I think even those who aren't generally as pro-Aussie as myself will find de Brito's blog to be quite enjoyable.
Current Music: John Wetton - Only Time Will Tell (live)
There are some Aussie-centric references that get lost on me, and he does use a bit of antiquated Aussie slang (by his own admission, an attempt to resurrect long-dead Aussie slang terms) that I find thoroughly enjoyable and fully intend to add to my existing lexicon (which probably only serve to confuse and infuriate my friends and family).
Being an "Oztraphile" I'll admit I am a bit biased, but despite my pro-Aussie prejudices and my overabundance of Aussie love, I think even those who aren't generally as pro-Aussie as myself will find de Brito's blog to be quite enjoyable.
Current Music: John Wetton - Only Time Will Tell (live)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
