Unreal Reality

As I continue watching more of "Sex and the City" I can't help but shake the feeling that I--as a male--am seeing a completely different show than my female contemporaries. I often find myself wondering why some of the small things that are important to these women are such and why some of the big things are not. I also realized that I was rooting for Mr. Big even when the show so obviously casts him in a bad light. Thus I've come to the conclusion that the show--while being written towards women--is just as interesting and valuable to men.

One of the most important things for a man to recognize when watching this show is that these women don't actually represent 4 separate women. They are representations of different sides of all women. Of course some of these sides don't show as much as others depending on the particular personality of the woman in question. Let me explain their persona's as I understand them, in no particular order (read: in the order of easiest for me to understand).

First, there is Samantha who embodies the raw sexuality of a woman. She explains in the very first episode that she wants to have sex like men do--for the sheer joy of sex. Therefore she takes a sort of love'em and leave'em approach to every guy she meets, keeping them only as long as it takes for her to live out some fantasy of hers. While this works well for her most of the time, it does grant her the Internet forum title of "the slutty one". This isn't necessarily true about her. She really just enjoys sex. But that brings up a whole other can-o'worms with the double standard between men and women that I don't care to get into. It's also important to realize that she doesn't sleep with these men without consequence. There are times when she lets herself get emotionally attached which 1: means that she's not really having sex in the "Male" manner which she first described, 2: shows that women--being more naturally in touch with their feelings--are more likely to want an emotional connection with their partner, and 3: shows that she isn't just a sex robot.

Next there is Charlotte who represents the hopeless romantic inside of a woman. She loves to believe in happy endings where the knight in shining armor saves her from 30-something Hell and rides off with her into the sunset. She also shows a true belief that Mankind is at heart, honest and good. I like to think of her as the way that most girls are when they just start a relationship. She's star-crossed and wonderfully happy until inevitably she finds the one irredeemable flaw in a man that pops her proverbial bubble. This is almost always a big letdown for her and causes her to question her beliefs about men even to the point that she sometimes gets philosophical. I'm sure many women can relate to this. However, Charlotte always bounces back and finds another good-looking successful guy. Most of all she represents a woman's desire to have relationships.

Then there's Miranda. Miranda is the drive behind women and also the cynic. She represents the feminist ideal of women succeeding in the male dominated workplace. She's also been hopeful with many men and had her heart broken over it as many times which is the partial cause of her cynicism. If she doesn't let men in, they can't hurt her. This is something I've seen in many of my friends who become apprehensive towards men for a while after a bad breakup. She also is very intimidating to many men which leaves her alone for many Friday nights. She exposes another double standard of our society in that men want to be more successful than their significant other. This always creates relationship issues for her.

Finally there's Carrie. Oh Carrie, how do I explain you? Carrie is all at once the side that women present to the public but also the enigmatic part of a woman that men almost never understand. She presents herself as a strong stable woman and is generally well liked by all. That's why she is sort of the glue that pulls all these personalities together and allows them to coexist. Truth is, without the Carrie side of women, us men would just think women to be neurotic. However, in the same turn she's also the reason why many men think their spouses are crazy--but a cute crazy. She represents all the emotional involvement of women with their relationships--not just romantic either. She worries about things that affect her and her friends and her partner and her work and the list goes on and on. To sum her up in one sentence, she's the part that EVERY woman understands but men rarely understand.

So why is this important for a male audience to know? Here's my easy answer: The more you understand what's happening, the less likely you are to screw things up. When it comes to dating, all these personalities need different things. It's our job to realize what these things are if we want to keep up a relationship. At least that's how I see it.

I got pwned...

Going on the recommendation of our esteemed professor I chose to begin viewing "Sex and the City". I'd previously left this one unwatched because I felt it carried with it a certain degree of femininity that I wouldn't want to expose myself to. Well long story short, I finished the first season today. I'm afraid to admit that it was good. There was plenty of conflict and character development. Overall an enjoyable watch.

The show actually opened my eyes to a lifestyle that I'd been living in complete denial of. It was like being clubbed in the head by a woman carrying a rolled up newspaper chocked full of articles about my own ignorance. It was like understanding simultaneously every conversation I've ever had with a woman in which she was trying to tell me something without actually telling me. It was like being cured of blindness and then figuring out in a most astonishing manner that you shouldn't look directly at the sun. Luckily, the Super Bowl was on today as well which gave me time to digest this information while taking in my recommended daily value of McNuggets, beer, chest-bumps and yelling bouts with the TV.

I've concluded from the show that I don't understand very much at all about women. I've learned some things though. For example, it seems to me that women are looking for one thing in particular from a man: security. Now I'm not speaking of this normal concept of security where she wants him to have money or power. I'm saying that women want to know that they are the most important person in the world to their man. I'd venture a guess that it's mostly chemical though it may be a vestige of courtly romance ingrained in the western psyche. They want to know that they are loved, which in turn, lets them love back.

What I'd like to explore about this particular idea is what tells a woman that a man loves her. Is it gifts? Is it words? Is it an act of service? Is it good quality time? Or even just the right touch? The astute among you will have notice that I just rambled off Gary Chapman's five love languages. This an idea I've subscribed to since midway through high school when my theatre director introduced me to it as a way to better understand romantic roles. Basically Chapman says that all people speak at least one of the five languages and it is paramount that you speak in the right one to whoever your partner is. For example, I naturally know how to interpret two of those: quality time and touch. Therefore, I will probably be most successful in relationships with women who speak those two languages because it's how I show affection by default. The connection I'm trying to make here is that a man must first understand the woman before the woman can love the man.

Am I right about this? I don't really know for certain but I call'em like I see'em.

Dials and Switches

From my point of view, courtship is all about attraction. There's no arguing that when two people meet and experience it, it is a powerful force to be reckoned with. The problem I see is that too many people think of attraction as a simple chemical reaction. Even though I'm sure it does have something to do with chemical reactions it is ridiculous to assume that it is wholly dependent on science. There's something more there. It's our interactions that build this attraction. As much as I hate to refer to it, it all has to do with the situation of discourse.

I once read that men and women feel attraction in very different ways. It was explained that men will almost immediately feel attraction for someone, whereas women will feel a little attraction but it needs to be grown. To put it simply, men are like light switches: on or off; women are like light dials: you can get any intensity from turning the dial. This presents an interesting situation when studying the situation of discourse in courtship. It seems like it sheds light (pardon the corny joke) on the rhetoric of De Rougemont. He explains this phenomena of men who are always pursuing unrequited love. Perhaps this is the reason behind all of that.

In any case, I have found this corollary to be true in my experiences with the opposite sex. In many instances, I've received a flirtatious glance and not returned one in kind. In those situations--after a certain amount of consideration--when I try to start up the flirting again, it falls on dead ears. Other times when I just follow my libido into the situation (i.e. when I'm inebriated) I usually find myself on the fast track to a great night. Maybe I could glean some self help advice from my own analysis?

Now take in mind that I'm not trying to make sweeping generalizations and by no means think that all women respond the same. I'm merely suggesting that understanding this, which I feel is fundamental to the rhetorical situation of courtship, will help to explain many situations to an otherwise clueless male audience. I know it helped me.