'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.

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

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.

chb3@bellsouth.net