Have you heard of Steve Harvey? He's the comedian turned self-help guru who has been making the talk show rounds lately, promoting his book, Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man. Harvey gives dating advice to single women. He promises to reveal "men's secret playbook" and teach women how to "win the game."
I stumbled upon Harvey's apperance on Oprah a couple of weeks ago and at first I was impressed. He's funny and self-deprecating, with a mischievous teddy bear charm. Harvey urges women to set their standards high and to delay sex until they find out what men really want from them-- whether they're "subsistence fishermen," or merely "sports fishermen." He preaches that men essentially need three things from women-- support, loyalty and "the cookie," which is his cutesy, network-friendly euphemism for sex. "Slow down ladies," he says. "We can't hold your hand unless you let us." All reasonably sound --if simplistic--advice.
But then Harvey lapses into cliche. On relationships, he insists that "the woman controls everything," that they have "all the power." He says that "a man has to mark his territory" and that every women should adhere to a 90-day probationary period before granting her partners his "benefits package"-- another cutesy euphemism for sex.
Wait a minute. I'm all for empowering women, but why should they have "all the power"? Isn't a relationship about sharing and compromise, a constant negotiation based on trust and communication and not some 90-day money-back guarantee?
A relationship is not a zero-sum game; It should be a partnership, not a power struggle. Instead of telling women how to "win the game," perhaps Harvey can teach couples how to move beyond it.
well put. I don't think that the way to 'take the power away from men' is to 'give it all to women.' That's just an inverted recipe for an unhealthy relationship.
I agree with you about how a healthy relationship should (normally) not be based on such a power imbalance.
But I do not agree with the idea that a woman with holding sex has actual power. This idea only works if you assume that women don't *like* to have sex, and that men *always* want it (so badly that it cripples them).
And even if it were true that it's possible to control a man through his desire, it would be a really shitty bargain for the woman. It robs her of the possibility to just have sex because she's in the mood. It turns something that should be fun into some kind of currency. It doesn't give you room to do it for fun at all. If it's a kind of currency, you can almost never do it for fun anymore, because that would lessen it's "market value".
So, if this kind of relationship exists, I honestly believe that both parties are not very well off.
You hit the nail on the head, Rattenmaus. The idea that women only have sex to make men happy is archaic at best, dangerous at worst. It risks making women ashamed of their sexuality. It tells men that sex is a conquest, THEIR conquest. This is elementary stuff and Oprah just doesn't get it.
I bought into the idea that women don't want sex, or that it is a form of power struggle/currency in a relationship.
As a male who cares about others as people (and not as obstacles or conquests), this has made ME ashamed of my sexuality. (I can't imagine how women who buy into that idea feel about their sexuality, that their desires/feelings are poker chips in a game).
The idea of sex as currency reminds me of the "Commodity Model of Sex" that is explained in this post: http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/01/09/paris-hilton-spokeswoman-for-the-commodity-model/
I 've wasted so much time and emotional energy on this bullshit. It makes me angry. It's still affecting me and my relationships today.
Wow, I am amazed that people are still relating relationships to games. What's worse is that Oprah, someone who many people look up to and respect, allowed this to be on her show, where it seems that once something appears on the show it instantly becomes a bestseller. What kind of a world will we live in if everyone is looking out for themselves, trying to 'win' the game of relationships, trying to be the one on top of the power struggle? It has to be an ebb and flow, there must be reciprocation. Who would want to be in a relationship where power is unequal at best, and seen as all or nothing in regards to success? So you win, big deal. You're now in control of someone who doesn't want to be with you. It seems in this case, to win is inevitabely to end up alone. Good luck with the game, hopefully you won't end up playing all by yourself.
MAN'S LAST doubleSTANDard
I like this article. I am tired of being pigeon-holed into the ever-immature, intellectual light-weight. And I'm not ...
Teaching Gender: guides for guyland
I may have missed the original opportunity to comment on the Dove ad, but one thing about it stuck out for me... The...
Men and Their Secrets: Dexter, Don Draper, and the...
Great article... I have had a thing for Dexter (less so) and Draper (much more so) for a while now, but have always f...
Men and Their Secrets: Dexter, Don Draper, and the...
Dan Levy's article made me think about the male actor prototypes of my teenage years (the 60's). The laconic loners w...
Horn Porn, Fratire, and the market of manliness
"I am hungry, I am incorrigible: I am man!" Haven't seen that BurgerKing commercial before - really glad I do...