I'm not going to defend adultery. I'm not looking to excuse any philandering. What I'm trying to do with this article is help people answer the question 'why?' Why do men do this? Are they drunk with power, self-importance, a sense of entitlement? Well that's certainly plays a significant role. I've also heard that it's just natural born instinct. This supposes men aren't meant to be with one partner and cannot resolve the internal conflict of societal expectations with animal instinct. None of these satisfy the question, and have more often than not been used as dismissive, quick one liners to deal with a very complicated topic.
If you are seeking truth you need to dig a little deeper. If you are a woman that wants to really know why so you can get closure and move on, the one liners won't help you. If you are a man who wants to know why you did what you did even though you knew the dire consequences, the dismissive male bashing won't help. So far the current national discourse on intercourse has done nothing in the way of providing a deeper understanding of the issue so as to provide helpful advice. It's all blame and excuses, and no problem solving.
I came to this realization years ago. It was true with Gary Hart, true with Clinton, Sanford, etc., etc., etc. I also noticed that there were all kinds of college courses on Women's Studies and absolutely no Men's Studies. Again, the snappy one liner is that all the other courses are Men's studies. Snark. In truth there are no real courses to help men deal understand and take control of their mind and bodies. Part of the reason is that most men wouldn't take the course. 'How To Be a Man' and the companion 'Guide To Hooking Up' are more like oral traditions passed down from generation to generation. Something seems to be missing in the translation, however.
The machismo that prevents any Men's Studies course from taking the academic world by storm also leads to acceptance of bad solutions to vexing problems in gender relations. For the most part the way to keep a man's libido in check has been through demonization that leads to self-repression. This bottles up the problem only to be unleashed and a very unhealthy fashion later in life. Sure, the macho man thinks he's walking the line, right up until he has his first indiscretion. Then his world comes crashing down around him. So what happened? Why did he do it?
Two contributing factors that most people don't talk enough about are sex drive and how men separate sex and love. Sure, it comes up in the form of dismissive one-lines, but it's never really explored deeply. Again, this is not an excuse, just an explanation.
The truth is different people have sex drives of varying intensities. Sure, you may think you have a healthy sex drive, but there are people out there that have been wired differently. Everybody is different, and this includes their sex drive. Imagine it as a scale of 1 to 10. The reality is that some people go to 11. It's not about self control, or being a dirty person, their sex drive is in overdrive. All the demonization and self-repression the world can muster is not enough to keep their libido in check. The worse thing that could happen is that this individual buys in to the claptrap and tries to suppress their desires. That is a time bomb that will blow up their life.
This doesn't mean they should be allowed to cheat. They just need to understand themselves better, their own needs, and be honest with themselves and their partner. This dovetails into the next topic, the difference between love and sex.
As has been said time and time again, men separate love and sex. A guy might love the woman he has sex with and he might not. Sex is something you do with someone, true; but it can also be something you do to someone. To put a finer point on this, making love is being with someone, carnal pleasure is doing it to someone. A man looking for release through sex will find someone to do, not someone to be with. Being with someone is special and carries great meaning. You look to be with someone you love and respect. Doing someone is down and dirty and is not something you want to do to someone you love and respect. It's fine to have some naughty time with your lovely lady, but when there is a baby in the crib, or kids down the hall, it ruins the perception she's your shagadelic minx forever.
Again, I'm not trying to excuse this. But if you're a woman reading this, doesn't this sound a lot like your cheating boyfriend or husband? If you're a guy, isn't this true? You want to do the Pamela Anderson type, but you want to be with the Hayden Panitierre type. If you want to do both, then you, sir, are an 11. Either that, or you haven't had enough experience and will encounter the with v. do paradox later in life and at great personal cost, Mr. Clinton.
The with v. do paradox creeps into the relationship slowly. As a guy you think you've got the best of both worlds at first. A woman that can be both a lover and friend. Then life gets in the way. The relationship morphs form one of dating and passion, to cold pizza and netflix. You are now with someone, but feel the need to do someone because of your sex drive, the need for release, and that base animal instinct. The person you are with doesn't fulfill that because of your new perception of them, and then you are susceptible to external influences. It usually takes years, maybe even decades, for this pent up passion to lead to an affair.
This disconnect arises in part because a man's sexuality is demonized and is sought to be repressed. Hence, his desires are seen as dirty and shameful. So much so that he won't consider his partner as the person to explore this side of himself with, but instead look to another to sate his lust.
The sad truth is that if he was open with his partner, more often that not, she'd be more than happy to help. She'd probably be ecstatic since more women complain about lack of sex after marriage than men. He just needs to get past that mental block, embrace his inner beast, and get down to business.
Sure, there are guys that are jerks and just have an affair because that's who they are. Just as sure as there are home wreckers who try to take a man away from his wife just for the joy of doing it, to see how far they can get. This doesn't explain why good seeds go bad, though. But for the others, it's important to acknowledge the truth that you can be with the person you do. It's just as likely that the person you are with wants you to do them and are wondering why you don't.
This is what I think happened to Tiger. A life of self-repression, living up to others ideals, and then encountering the paradox. Not knowing what it was he couldn't resolve the conflict between with and do. This problem coincided with outrageous fame and fortune in his case. We know women throw themselves at guys with money and power regardless of marital status. So right when he would be looking to find release by other means all these women were eager to do him. It's so hard to resist temptation when you are at your most vulnerable. He caved. Maybe he felt bad about it, figured he was just a bad guy for having dirty desires, and didn't look to resolve the problem. It was just par for the course for a top tier male athlete. Surely we know he wasn't the first and won't be the last. Maybe he's an 11, maybe he's a jerk, or maybe he needed to learn about men's sexuality from someone who wasn't trying to repress it.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Friday, November 27, 2009
Climaquiddick :: Fake But Accurate
So far the few news outlets are reporting on the leaked e-mails concerning Global Warming. The bottom line is that they cooked the books. The only defense they have is the same as Dan Rather's; fake but accurate. We know that strategy is a loser.
There is evidence of several crimes in these e-mails. The most egregious is their crime against the planet. By cooking the books they've hurt the very movement they supported. Hopefully this will be the death of alarmism and pragmatism can take its place. While I know quite a few warming skeptics I have yet to meet anyone who is pro-pollution. We can work toward a future of clean energy without the hype.
There is evidence of several crimes in these e-mails. The most egregious is their crime against the planet. By cooking the books they've hurt the very movement they supported. Hopefully this will be the death of alarmism and pragmatism can take its place. While I know quite a few warming skeptics I have yet to meet anyone who is pro-pollution. We can work toward a future of clean energy without the hype.
Friday, November 06, 2009
V is for Victimization
There is a new storm brewing about the new TV series 'V'. It would appear to be taking pot shots at the new Commander in Chief and his supporters. What is amazing is how closely art imitates life. But is this really ABC taking on the White House? Or, as discussed over at Big Hollywood, the story was actually done before The Won was even nominated!
It would seem that Big Hollywood got caught in their own trap. The current crop of politicians just can't help themselves and wind up making the Theater of the Absurd look mainstream. This reminds me of the remake of The Manchurian Candidate. The character played by Meryl Streep actually many viewers thought was styled after Hillary Clinton. While attempting to slime the Republicans, the fact that her actions seemed completely in line with what Clinton would do wound up backfiring.
This seems to be a common phenomenon where whenever left leaning writers try to gin up fear of what Republicans might do they inadvertently expose the Democrats actually in the act of doing the dirty deed. Expect 'V' to be cancelled as there is no way to write about a wild eyed populace high on hope getting eaten up by their own ignorance without damaging the DNC.
It would seem that Big Hollywood got caught in their own trap. The current crop of politicians just can't help themselves and wind up making the Theater of the Absurd look mainstream. This reminds me of the remake of The Manchurian Candidate. The character played by Meryl Streep actually many viewers thought was styled after Hillary Clinton. While attempting to slime the Republicans, the fact that her actions seemed completely in line with what Clinton would do wound up backfiring.
This seems to be a common phenomenon where whenever left leaning writers try to gin up fear of what Republicans might do they inadvertently expose the Democrats actually in the act of doing the dirty deed. Expect 'V' to be cancelled as there is no way to write about a wild eyed populace high on hope getting eaten up by their own ignorance without damaging the DNC.
Friday, September 18, 2009
ACORN and The New Tactics of the New Media
Over the past couple decades politicians and political groups associated with both parties have been caught doing bad things. Whether or not getting caught leads to removal or sanctions has usually depended on how long they stay in the media cycle. If the media is out for blood they won't move on until they've achieved their goal. Claims of media bias arise when Republicans get the klieg lights while Democrats won't even get their party affiliation mentioned. The tactic has been to bury the scandal on a late Friday for Democrats and open wide on a Monday for Republicans. Fairly transparent, and fairly successful.
In response to real and perceived media bias there has been a rise in citizen journalists doing exposés. Without the same size megaphone they were able to annoy, but not unseat. It was easy enough for the old media to bury the report and then simply move on. Finally somebody figured it out.
The revelations about ACORN from the first video shocked the country. Except Charlie Gibson, of course, who was left unawares. Yet, a single video would be easy to refute and bury. In response they posted a second video. Now we start to see a trend. When the third video came out the game changed forever.
There is no real way for the opposition to know how many more videos there are. Also, when somebody releases a series of anything they usually save the best for last. Why have the US Census, the House of Representatives, and the US Senate moved so quickly against ACORN? Fear of the unknown. More shoes will drop and they cannot afford to be on the wrong side of the issue.
They also know that they can no longer control the message. Being on the wrong side of an issue has not been detrimental for certain members of the political class through the years. Since the media are willing lap dogs they know they won't be savaged on the nightly news. The difference now, after the Van Jones scandal, is that the nightly news no longer controls the story. Nor does the print media.
From now on, when a story hits the internet, damage control must start immediately. However, when it hits, those in the crosshairs must wait to find out if the other shoe drops. In waiting they risk losing control of the narrative, but the only other option is to come clean. We know that won't happen. Those providing cover won't know the extent of the damage and thus the whole apparatus will be frozen.
Can't stop the signal.
In response to real and perceived media bias there has been a rise in citizen journalists doing exposés. Without the same size megaphone they were able to annoy, but not unseat. It was easy enough for the old media to bury the report and then simply move on. Finally somebody figured it out.
The revelations about ACORN from the first video shocked the country. Except Charlie Gibson, of course, who was left unawares. Yet, a single video would be easy to refute and bury. In response they posted a second video. Now we start to see a trend. When the third video came out the game changed forever.
There is no real way for the opposition to know how many more videos there are. Also, when somebody releases a series of anything they usually save the best for last. Why have the US Census, the House of Representatives, and the US Senate moved so quickly against ACORN? Fear of the unknown. More shoes will drop and they cannot afford to be on the wrong side of the issue.
They also know that they can no longer control the message. Being on the wrong side of an issue has not been detrimental for certain members of the political class through the years. Since the media are willing lap dogs they know they won't be savaged on the nightly news. The difference now, after the Van Jones scandal, is that the nightly news no longer controls the story. Nor does the print media.
From now on, when a story hits the internet, damage control must start immediately. However, when it hits, those in the crosshairs must wait to find out if the other shoe drops. In waiting they risk losing control of the narrative, but the only other option is to come clean. We know that won't happen. Those providing cover won't know the extent of the damage and thus the whole apparatus will be frozen.
Can't stop the signal.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Male Bashing Stimulus?
Over at the Weekly Standard Christina Hoff Sommers explains how the 'shovel ready' stimulus package got derailed by feminist activists. What she'll soon find out is that those chickens will be coming home to roost pretty darn soon. What we're seeing in various states is that the so-called recession proof jobs such as education and healthcare are taking a beating.
Many school districts are losing population due to the economic downturn, lowering their student population, and accordingly their funding. School funding is allocated on a per pupil basis. Fewer pupils means less money. This has resulted in many first year teachers being let go, next in line are the second year teachers. Now this is based on seniority, not actual number of years in the profession. There are many teachers with decades of experience that are considered first year because they relocated from another state. The stink of it is they relocated based on marketing programs by various school boards pleading for more teachers to fill the demand. Now that demand is gone and therefore so is the money. Keep in mind that education is a profession that is part of the 'human infrastructure' - code for female dominated.
Another profession that is part of the 'human infrastructure' is nursing. It seems there has always been more job openings for nurses than nurses to fill them for the past several decades. It's been a complete crisis. Part of the problem, however, has always been the exceptionally poor working conditions and low pay that nurses receive. They enter the profession with high hopes, then bail out once they find a better paying job or a job with a better work/life balance. It just so happens a lot of those higher paying jobs were related to the construction industry. Mortgage brokers, title agents, insurance agents, and other related professionals that were formerly nurses are now unemployed. They've returned to nursing, and in many cases have many years of nursing experience to draw upon. While we certainly don't have a surplus of nurses, we no longer have the incredible demand we once did. Further, as more people lose their jobs and stop paying their health insurance premiums we can expect the formerly recession proof healthcare industry to start feeling similar pains to those in the education business.
What all this comes down to is a very simple principle. There are jobs that generate tax revenue and jobs that consume tax revenue. An inbalance in favor of generation will lead to more revenue and can lead to a reduction in taxes (LOL!) or an increase in consumption. When the inbalance tips in favor of consumption there needs to be a decrease in that consumption (ROFL!). Any attempt to raise tax rates to make up for the lost revenue will further erode revenues by disincentivizing business. Then the imbalance will accelerate in favor of consumption until the whole system falls over. See: U.S.S.R.
So, bottome line here, is that in an effort to make the stimulus more fair for a certain portion of society we find out that this particular portion has been a net consumer of tax revenues and not a generator. As such, they've been riding on the backs of those that have been paying into the system. If they don't get thrown off they'll wind up killing the golden goose. It's a pity those reposonsible for education couldn't see this coming.
Many school districts are losing population due to the economic downturn, lowering their student population, and accordingly their funding. School funding is allocated on a per pupil basis. Fewer pupils means less money. This has resulted in many first year teachers being let go, next in line are the second year teachers. Now this is based on seniority, not actual number of years in the profession. There are many teachers with decades of experience that are considered first year because they relocated from another state. The stink of it is they relocated based on marketing programs by various school boards pleading for more teachers to fill the demand. Now that demand is gone and therefore so is the money. Keep in mind that education is a profession that is part of the 'human infrastructure' - code for female dominated.
Another profession that is part of the 'human infrastructure' is nursing. It seems there has always been more job openings for nurses than nurses to fill them for the past several decades. It's been a complete crisis. Part of the problem, however, has always been the exceptionally poor working conditions and low pay that nurses receive. They enter the profession with high hopes, then bail out once they find a better paying job or a job with a better work/life balance. It just so happens a lot of those higher paying jobs were related to the construction industry. Mortgage brokers, title agents, insurance agents, and other related professionals that were formerly nurses are now unemployed. They've returned to nursing, and in many cases have many years of nursing experience to draw upon. While we certainly don't have a surplus of nurses, we no longer have the incredible demand we once did. Further, as more people lose their jobs and stop paying their health insurance premiums we can expect the formerly recession proof healthcare industry to start feeling similar pains to those in the education business.
What all this comes down to is a very simple principle. There are jobs that generate tax revenue and jobs that consume tax revenue. An inbalance in favor of generation will lead to more revenue and can lead to a reduction in taxes (LOL!) or an increase in consumption. When the inbalance tips in favor of consumption there needs to be a decrease in that consumption (ROFL!). Any attempt to raise tax rates to make up for the lost revenue will further erode revenues by disincentivizing business. Then the imbalance will accelerate in favor of consumption until the whole system falls over. See: U.S.S.R.
So, bottome line here, is that in an effort to make the stimulus more fair for a certain portion of society we find out that this particular portion has been a net consumer of tax revenues and not a generator. As such, they've been riding on the backs of those that have been paying into the system. If they don't get thrown off they'll wind up killing the golden goose. It's a pity those reposonsible for education couldn't see this coming.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Digg
Seed Newsvine
Furl it!
Posts
