I once wrote a poem that posited that there was nothing to be said that hadn’t been said before… and just like in life sometimes we have to make the same mistake over and over again before we learn the lesson behind it, only to forget it and make the mistake once again, so too great thoughts are reiterated time and time again because we just don’t get it the first time.
Many think today (or four years ago) that our government is more corrupt, our leaders more disingenuous, our way of life more in peril than at any time in the history of man, and yet Sir Thomas More felt the same way in 1516 as did Plato when he wrote “The Republic.” Perhaps Peter Allen and Carole Bayer Sager encapsulated it best with the phrase “Everything old is new again.”
A lot of what you’ll find in HTSYMBBABM is nothing new, most of it was published in 1910, or even earlier in the Bhagavad Gita. I and most of my generation had to memorize the 1910 version in the fourth grade. It was a good lesson then, it’s a good lesson now, and it’s a good lesson for the coming year.
If
Rudyard Kippling, 1895,
first published in his collection of short stories and poems, Rewards and Fairies, 1910
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools;
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on";
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Choosing your bias
There’s an article in the Daily Texan that reports on a UT study which concludes that men look to curvy body types for a one night stand, but to facial features when considering long term relationships… here’s the methodology:
“Participants were asked to look at an image and decide whether they would consider this person for a one-night stand or a marriage partner, but the image was covered by two boxes. In order to make their decisions, they were allowed to uncover only one box; either the face or the body,”
The researchers found that there was a correlation between checking out the bods and opting for one night stands, and another between checking out the face and long term relationships.
One night stand equals instant gratification, and the idea of maximizing the utility of that instant gratification probably equates with a bigger concern for the toys available. If you are told you’re just choosing for the night, of course you’re going to check out the equipment.
But when opting for “long term relationship” the guys checked out the face. Maybe they were looking good genes, maybe they were looking for soul in the eyes, maybe they were looking for someone who looked like their mother, but the fact is that these men, when choosing a mate for life, looked at the face and not the goodies. That speaks well of men.
But the team “concluded that men categorize women with attractive, curvy bodies as short-term partners, whereas a woman with a pretty face would more likely be considered for a long-term relationship”
Call me crazy, but I think there’s are some underlying prejudices in the conclusion: one is that men are shallow sex machines, and another is that there is something less than meritorious in being sexually attractive.
The key here is that the men were given two options: one night stand, long term relationship.
I don’t know why the researchers chose to characterize the behavior as “curvy bodies equal short term”… which suggest to this reader a slightly pejorative view of both the men and the curvy bodies… sort of a cross between the meme in the horror movies it’s always the sexualy active girls who get killed off first and the constant conflict between the intellectual and the sensual.
The point is they could have just as easily interpreted the data to show that when men are asked to select life mates they don’t act like the dogs they are often thought to be but actually look past the wrapping. So why the negative spin? It could just be good marketing. Sex sells, thoughtful doesn’t, but it could be something more, an echo of the bad choices we make in our relationships.
So often in our relationships, especially when they are in trouble, when we are presented with an action… let’s say you’re taking in the groceries, she’s in front and the door closes behind her, locking you out, forcing you to juggle the bags and generally inconveniencing you.
There are a myriad of explanations:
she did it on purpose because she still mad about (fillintheblank);
she didn’t do it intentionally, but she sure didn’t act to correct it because she doesn’t care;
this is just another example of what a inconsiderate (fillintheblank) she is; or maybe…
she was struggling with her groceries and didn’t notice; or maybe…
there was a guy with a gun in the kitchen and she just saved your life; or maybe …
it was just an accident.
You don’t know why, you’re just guessing, but the truth is you will make that guess and then act on it as if it were the truth. So more than likely you’ll go into the kitchen irritated, resentful, and your relationship will take another hit.
The thing is we can interpret our spouse's behavior any way we want… just like the UT people did… but why do we so often choose the negative interpretation to believe? This is the better man: if given the opportunity to opt for a base, mean and otherwise unfavorable motivation for a choice his partner has made and a good, positive, and favorable reason, the better man opts for the positive choice.
Be the better man.
“Participants were asked to look at an image and decide whether they would consider this person for a one-night stand or a marriage partner, but the image was covered by two boxes. In order to make their decisions, they were allowed to uncover only one box; either the face or the body,”
The researchers found that there was a correlation between checking out the bods and opting for one night stands, and another between checking out the face and long term relationships.
One night stand equals instant gratification, and the idea of maximizing the utility of that instant gratification probably equates with a bigger concern for the toys available. If you are told you’re just choosing for the night, of course you’re going to check out the equipment.
But when opting for “long term relationship” the guys checked out the face. Maybe they were looking good genes, maybe they were looking for soul in the eyes, maybe they were looking for someone who looked like their mother, but the fact is that these men, when choosing a mate for life, looked at the face and not the goodies. That speaks well of men.
But the team “concluded that men categorize women with attractive, curvy bodies as short-term partners, whereas a woman with a pretty face would more likely be considered for a long-term relationship”
Call me crazy, but I think there’s are some underlying prejudices in the conclusion: one is that men are shallow sex machines, and another is that there is something less than meritorious in being sexually attractive.
The key here is that the men were given two options: one night stand, long term relationship.
I don’t know why the researchers chose to characterize the behavior as “curvy bodies equal short term”… which suggest to this reader a slightly pejorative view of both the men and the curvy bodies… sort of a cross between the meme in the horror movies it’s always the sexualy active girls who get killed off first and the constant conflict between the intellectual and the sensual.
The point is they could have just as easily interpreted the data to show that when men are asked to select life mates they don’t act like the dogs they are often thought to be but actually look past the wrapping. So why the negative spin? It could just be good marketing. Sex sells, thoughtful doesn’t, but it could be something more, an echo of the bad choices we make in our relationships.
So often in our relationships, especially when they are in trouble, when we are presented with an action… let’s say you’re taking in the groceries, she’s in front and the door closes behind her, locking you out, forcing you to juggle the bags and generally inconveniencing you.
There are a myriad of explanations:
she did it on purpose because she still mad about (fillintheblank);
she didn’t do it intentionally, but she sure didn’t act to correct it because she doesn’t care;
this is just another example of what a inconsiderate (fillintheblank) she is; or maybe…
she was struggling with her groceries and didn’t notice; or maybe…
there was a guy with a gun in the kitchen and she just saved your life; or maybe …
it was just an accident.
You don’t know why, you’re just guessing, but the truth is you will make that guess and then act on it as if it were the truth. So more than likely you’ll go into the kitchen irritated, resentful, and your relationship will take another hit.
The thing is we can interpret our spouse's behavior any way we want… just like the UT people did… but why do we so often choose the negative interpretation to believe? This is the better man: if given the opportunity to opt for a base, mean and otherwise unfavorable motivation for a choice his partner has made and a good, positive, and favorable reason, the better man opts for the positive choice.
Be the better man.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
'Sugarbabe' favors negotiated infidelity
CNN has an article and video on a new, presumably nascent hot, memoir "Sugarbabe" that holds the premise that couples in sexless marriages should negotiate approved sexual encounters outside of the marriage.
I think she may sell more books than me. There are a lot of guys who'd like to hear just that.
One of the constant complaints I hear from men is that their wives refuse, or are at best reluctant, to engage in sex. This is hard for them because many of these men equate the act of sex with a show of love and affection, and regardless of whether they have a pressing biological need that can not be self-remedied, the denial hurts, and since it hurts it is difficult for them not to take it as a personal insult, a judgment, a betrayal.
And often times this pain is the basis for the end of the marriage, often times it is the justification for an affair.
In her interview on CNN Ms. Hill, not her real name, posits "I think that cheating men are normal," says Hill. "Monogamous men are heroes. Monogamy does have a place in relationships, but not on the long-term. Men are hard-wired to betray women on the long-term."
So she suggests that rather than letting your dog escape your yard undetected, that you walk that bad boy on a leash
“Hill is referring to her idea of "negotiated infidelity." That shouldn't be confused with an open relationship, which to Hill "has no rules." Nor does it imply that it's necessary that a wife allow her husband to hop into bed with whomever he chooses -- unless of course she's OK with that."
This is sort of life imitating art… on Curb Your Enthusiasm Larry Davd’s wife gave him a guilt free sexual encounter with the woman on his choice for their tenth anniversary. He wasn’t ever was able to capitalize on the gift, but I know the marriage didn’t work out, and I can’t imagine that adding the dynamic of asking your wife’s (or husband, she says this works both ways) for permission to jump Pretty Pauline’s bones is going to foster a caring and committed relationship.
This recipe has only one ingredient: disaster. But it will sell. I don't think it's going to be a stocking stuffer, but it will sell.
The problem I have with Ms. Hill’s philosophy is that it doesn’t encourage self-growth. It relies on the premise that men are hardwired this way and it cannot be changed, so why try, why not encourage it? Go with the flow.
I doubt very seriously that she would apply the same philosophy to men’s atavistic inclination towards violence, but if she were to pen a memoir that suggested men should beat their wives, I am sure she’d find a demographic full of willing buyers.
Ma Carrie, a wonderful old woman said to me, “God gives you the face you are born with but you create the one you die with.” I think the sentiment has been roughly attributed to Shakespeare, but I don’t think Ma Carrie read much 16th century English literature. The same applies to our growth as men. We have our atavistic hardwiring, and we can go through life justifying bad behavior by saying That’s the way I was built to run, but the man who learns to identify and control the base instincts is the man who is living in a fuller and more rewarding relationship.
My demographic of willing buyers are those who want to become better men, husbands and fathers. If that's you, you can click on the "buy now" button on the right.
I think she may sell more books than me. There are a lot of guys who'd like to hear just that.
One of the constant complaints I hear from men is that their wives refuse, or are at best reluctant, to engage in sex. This is hard for them because many of these men equate the act of sex with a show of love and affection, and regardless of whether they have a pressing biological need that can not be self-remedied, the denial hurts, and since it hurts it is difficult for them not to take it as a personal insult, a judgment, a betrayal.
And often times this pain is the basis for the end of the marriage, often times it is the justification for an affair.
In her interview on CNN Ms. Hill, not her real name, posits "I think that cheating men are normal," says Hill. "Monogamous men are heroes. Monogamy does have a place in relationships, but not on the long-term. Men are hard-wired to betray women on the long-term."
So she suggests that rather than letting your dog escape your yard undetected, that you walk that bad boy on a leash
“Hill is referring to her idea of "negotiated infidelity." That shouldn't be confused with an open relationship, which to Hill "has no rules." Nor does it imply that it's necessary that a wife allow her husband to hop into bed with whomever he chooses -- unless of course she's OK with that."
This is sort of life imitating art… on Curb Your Enthusiasm Larry Davd’s wife gave him a guilt free sexual encounter with the woman on his choice for their tenth anniversary. He wasn’t ever was able to capitalize on the gift, but I know the marriage didn’t work out, and I can’t imagine that adding the dynamic of asking your wife’s (or husband, she says this works both ways) for permission to jump Pretty Pauline’s bones is going to foster a caring and committed relationship.
This recipe has only one ingredient: disaster. But it will sell. I don't think it's going to be a stocking stuffer, but it will sell.
The problem I have with Ms. Hill’s philosophy is that it doesn’t encourage self-growth. It relies on the premise that men are hardwired this way and it cannot be changed, so why try, why not encourage it? Go with the flow.
I doubt very seriously that she would apply the same philosophy to men’s atavistic inclination towards violence, but if she were to pen a memoir that suggested men should beat their wives, I am sure she’d find a demographic full of willing buyers.
Ma Carrie, a wonderful old woman said to me, “God gives you the face you are born with but you create the one you die with.” I think the sentiment has been roughly attributed to Shakespeare, but I don’t think Ma Carrie read much 16th century English literature. The same applies to our growth as men. We have our atavistic hardwiring, and we can go through life justifying bad behavior by saying That’s the way I was built to run, but the man who learns to identify and control the base instincts is the man who is living in a fuller and more rewarding relationship.
My demographic of willing buyers are those who want to become better men, husbands and fathers. If that's you, you can click on the "buy now" button on the right.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Maybe Modest Men Should Wear Red?
Maybe modest men in Rutgers should wear red to mitigate the sexual derision their diffidence generates?
Another study, this one from the University of Rochester, apparently a more nuanced and carefully correlated than the Rutgers study, shows that across cultures, continents and ethnicity, men who wear red are perceived by women to be more powerful and sexually attractive. (And it seems to be reciprocal: men like women in red)
Do with this what you will.
I had a friend who had been exposed to the ideas of Imago and How to Save Your Marriage by Becoming a Better Man sit on my front porch and expostulate, after having left his wife, that this whole concept about actually listening to women was great and powerful because the chicks dug it and he got laid more than he ever had before.
I was torn between calling him out to challenge him with the fact that the concepts of the book were not intended to be a Lothario’s guide, and between accepting with the thought that this isn’t how I thought he would begin to grow, but it was, nevertheless, a beginning. I went with the latter.
So, if you want to put on a red power tie before your next date, have at it, but if you start out your relationship with manipulation, I doubt very seriously you will ever find happiness through that relationship and ultimately isn’t that what we want?
Hat tip: Instapundit
Another study, this one from the University of Rochester, apparently a more nuanced and carefully correlated than the Rutgers study, shows that across cultures, continents and ethnicity, men who wear red are perceived by women to be more powerful and sexually attractive. (And it seems to be reciprocal: men like women in red)
Do with this what you will.
I had a friend who had been exposed to the ideas of Imago and How to Save Your Marriage by Becoming a Better Man sit on my front porch and expostulate, after having left his wife, that this whole concept about actually listening to women was great and powerful because the chicks dug it and he got laid more than he ever had before.
I was torn between calling him out to challenge him with the fact that the concepts of the book were not intended to be a Lothario’s guide, and between accepting with the thought that this isn’t how I thought he would begin to grow, but it was, nevertheless, a beginning. I went with the latter.
So, if you want to put on a red power tie before your next date, have at it, but if you start out your relationship with manipulation, I doubt very seriously you will ever find happiness through that relationship and ultimately isn’t that what we want?
Hat tip: Instapundit
Monday, August 2, 2010
Dog Bites Man in Sexuality Study
There is a study out from Rutgers University that posits that women are more attracted to macho men and that the modest metrosexual meme (allegedly) typified by Hugh Grant and Alan Alda was just a flash in the pan.
Absent having a copy of the study at hand it is usually hard to meaningfully challenge the conclusions of any statistical analysis (and I am not going to subscribe to Psychology of Men and Masculinity just to find the foundation to rip this one apart) but one challenge to the validity of this study simply leaps off the screen: I’m not sure that the sample size is either large enough or representative enough to make the results reliable. As near as one can tell, this experiment tallied the responses of only 230 individuals, (130 female) to simulated job interviews and that right there limits the impact of the study, for at most it tells us of the relative attractiveness of macho men among volunteers to be found in and around Rutgers, New Jersey.
But even if it was a national study with a standard deviation of .05 this truly isn’t a man bites dog sort of story. Women have been attracted to macho men since Grog first smashed an ibex in the head and drug it over to Angelique’s cave. It worked for Grog and for many men foreplay has not evolved much further.
It’s no surprise that the emotional triggers of attractiveness that were hardwired into our brain one-hundred thousand years ago still work. In the right environment and with the right woman “Me Tarzan, you Jane” is still a great pick-up line, but don’t forget that what works in the jungle (or TGI Fridays @9) doesn’t necessarily work in the home for one simple reason: we don’t live in the jungle.
Our environment has changed. The relationship our brains were hardwired to encourage, where the Grogs of the world would feed and inseminate the Angeliques with little or no concept of responsibility, commitment or even survival past twenty-five is not an effective relationship paradigm in today’s world.
Okay, for some guys that remains a viable paradigm: live large with several baby-mammas and either die young or get incarcerated for life.
But for the rest of us, those of us who want to live past forty, those of us who want to live to see their grandchildren and great-grandchildren the key to building long-term successful relationship, men and women alike, is in recognizing and letting go of those atavistic survival skills that worked for Grog and Angelique.
Thus the real value of the study isn’t to prove the point that macho men are more sexually attractive to some women, but to remind us that we, all of us,(or at least some of us in New Jersey) are still at times controlled by the irrational brain, the amygdala, and that our evolution as a species, but more importantly as individuals, is dependent on our ability to recognize this propensity in ourselves so that we can control it when it becomes destructive to ourselves, our intimate relationships and our families.
It’s called personal gtrowth.
Absent having a copy of the study at hand it is usually hard to meaningfully challenge the conclusions of any statistical analysis (and I am not going to subscribe to Psychology of Men and Masculinity just to find the foundation to rip this one apart) but one challenge to the validity of this study simply leaps off the screen: I’m not sure that the sample size is either large enough or representative enough to make the results reliable. As near as one can tell, this experiment tallied the responses of only 230 individuals, (130 female) to simulated job interviews and that right there limits the impact of the study, for at most it tells us of the relative attractiveness of macho men among volunteers to be found in and around Rutgers, New Jersey.
But even if it was a national study with a standard deviation of .05 this truly isn’t a man bites dog sort of story. Women have been attracted to macho men since Grog first smashed an ibex in the head and drug it over to Angelique’s cave. It worked for Grog and for many men foreplay has not evolved much further.
It’s no surprise that the emotional triggers of attractiveness that were hardwired into our brain one-hundred thousand years ago still work. In the right environment and with the right woman “Me Tarzan, you Jane” is still a great pick-up line, but don’t forget that what works in the jungle (or TGI Fridays @9) doesn’t necessarily work in the home for one simple reason: we don’t live in the jungle.
Our environment has changed. The relationship our brains were hardwired to encourage, where the Grogs of the world would feed and inseminate the Angeliques with little or no concept of responsibility, commitment or even survival past twenty-five is not an effective relationship paradigm in today’s world.
Okay, for some guys that remains a viable paradigm: live large with several baby-mammas and either die young or get incarcerated for life.
But for the rest of us, those of us who want to live past forty, those of us who want to live to see their grandchildren and great-grandchildren the key to building long-term successful relationship, men and women alike, is in recognizing and letting go of those atavistic survival skills that worked for Grog and Angelique.
Thus the real value of the study isn’t to prove the point that macho men are more sexually attractive to some women, but to remind us that we, all of us,(or at least some of us in New Jersey) are still at times controlled by the irrational brain, the amygdala, and that our evolution as a species, but more importantly as individuals, is dependent on our ability to recognize this propensity in ourselves so that we can control it when it becomes destructive to ourselves, our intimate relationships and our families.
It’s called personal gtrowth.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)