Men Shouldn't Cheat-- Unless It's With Another Dude

The book reviewed here seems pretty tired and cliched. As does the reveiw itself.

There’s a new book in town that’s getting everyone riled: Guy Thomas Blews’s Marriage & How to Avoid It, which stakes out a bold arena for combat. In a nutshell, Blews’s claim is that a happy marriage is impossible. This is, he asserts, because human beings in general — but, really, when you come down to it, mainly men, grrr, the tigers — are incapable of lifelong relationships. They are compelled, at some point, to voyage out of the stifling environs of the wedding vows and bang that chick in marketing.

The tragedy for both Blews and his argument — which is as old as the hills, and about as sprightly — is that he is such an obviously damaged individual. Those opposing his claims have simply pointed out how uniquely unqualified he is to comment on marriage, rather than attack his actual argument head-on.

Here's what I find interesting, though. Now the title of the review is
Spare us men's natural urges. The reviewer, a woman, is less than convinced by Blews' (no comment) thesis that men must stray:

It’s an idea that is always announced a little proudly. Men’s “natural physical urges� are “so strong� that they “cannot control themselves�. Men, of course, wouldn’t look proud of a single other “natural physical urge� “so strong� that they “cannot control� it — such as soiling their pants, or succumbing to sleep at the wheel of the car and being smashed to death under a lorry.

...

Interestingly, the self-help section in my local bookshop carries no books about curing infidelity aimed at men. This is, presumably, because the kind of men who buy into this theory of monogamy being impossible would rather exhaust themselves in persuading a sceptical humanity that their vices are irrevocable “natural urges� rather than simply to try to become better human beings.

...

But surely, at some point, he must ponder what the results of his theory will be. For myself, I can think of few things more aspirational than an old couple holding hands. That speaks of a lifetime of jokes, shags, winks, kids, secretly slagging off the neighbours, 52 Christmas trees, and crying with laughter at a some terrible new haircut.

Blews’s touted alternative, by comparison, does not seem like anything to wish for. For while society might still have a sneaking regard for the rampant stag, ultimately it dislikes a weak, priapic, sybaritic old goat in a Bath chair.

Okay... so she's pro-monogamy, pro-marriage, and anti- this whole idea that men must cheat.

Not very unexpected. Pretty conventional, and not really all that arguable. Not really breaking any ground here, but then, it's tough to break ground when stating the obvious.

So what the hell is this doing in the review?

Of course, the concept that a man simply cannot be satisfied with a mere, single woman is ancient. The Greeks thought that men couldn’t be satisfied with women, full stop, and that they would have to flee into the bed of another man to have a decent relationship. The idea of homosexuality as a solution isn’t, oddly and sadly, much touted in modern society, but the theory behind it — that men must roam from the home — is still the same.

Boldface mine.

So, let me get this straight: This reviewer is against male infidelity, but she's willing to make an exception for male homosexual infidelity -- she finds it "odd" and "sad" that society does not "tout" this as a "solution."

There is a weird thing about pro-gay liberals. It's one thing to be gay friendly. But it's another thing -- and a weird, sort of condescending thing -- for straight liberal women to be sooooo absurdly pro-gay they actually pine for the day when their men are encouraged to have affairs with other men.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: There are few gay men who are as into male homosexuality and gay culture as straight liberal women.

Can she really mean such an absurd thing? That she really wishes that society would promote homosexual liasons between married men? What does that accomplish, precisely? Is it not cheating if it's gay cheating?

Or is this just her knee-jerk, unthinking, "You go, boys!" gay empowerment reflex?

I imagine it's the latter. But how freaking weird is it if this woman is so absurdly pro-gay she's willing to let her husband bang the hottie in marketing -- so long as that hottie has a penis. Hey-- wouldn't want to "oppress" one's husband's sublimated homosexual desires, right? It's all well and good to suppress his heterosexual desires for other women, but mustn't keep him from "exploring" his homosexual desires. Indeed, such explorations must be nutured, even encouraged. Even "touted" as a "solution."

To do otherwise would be to be heteronormative and homophobic and just basically bad.

Thanks to Joe in Ohio.

posted by Ace at 08:08 AM

| Access Comments