The complications of liberation.

This weekend I found myself at a wedding attended by many people I know well. I can say that I have been to enough weddings over the past several years to identify the various patterns you see emerge. It’s eerily cosmic the way a goofy glow befalls everyone, spats and tiffs between friends and lovers are minimized, and even if you really can’t stand either the bride or groom, you find yourself tearing up when they say their “I do’s.” One of many such patterns you see is the almost-planned interplay between the single bridesmaids and the single groomsmen. Such was the cliché case this weekend. The only bridesmaid was from out of town, serendipitously single, and admittedly recently divorced. She brandished a thick southern accent that she played up to a “T” and shamelessly flirted with the various groomsmen vying for her attention. It was quite entertaining. And as you could imagine, after two full days of getting to know everyone, and after much alcohol and “love in the air,” she hooked up with a lucky fella. The dramady was a topic of conversation the following day between A and I, and he explained that wedding hookups happen because girls get emotional at weddings. Hold the phone. Dear A, I said, hook ups have nothing to do with emotion, for the guy or the girl. Us girls are as devoid of emotion during a random tryst as any man. With perplexion he asks, “well, why do you insist on being emotional when we….” Sigh. I feel bad for him and all men who are trying to learn our “rules.” In reality, it doesn’t make any sense. Kudos for him for listening to me and accepting that girls need emotional closeness for intimacy, but is our feminist liberalism confusing them like the RCA dog? How do you explain that, for the most part, random sex is emotionally devoid until it occurs enough times that you require an emotional connection? Why is it easier to hop into the sack with a perfect stranger than it is to be intimate with the man you’re slightly annoyed with? For all our liberation and social evolution, have we simply succeeded in moving further away from getting emotional intimacy? In a weird series of “yes, but….” sentences I attempted to explain this A, and although he attempted to look mildly interested, I’m sure he chalked it up to “women are confusing” and left it at that. And as for the bridesmaid and groomsman, I’m sure living in different parts of the country eliminates potential further “complications.”

Dear Editor....

Perhaps this is so blatantly obvious to everyone else that when you read this, you’ll go “duh,” but have you ever noticed that the “man world” doesn’t give one iota about demystifying women? For me, this was like realizing you’re holding your keys after you just spent ten minutes looking for them. Recently I was flying cross-country, and since I cannot sleep on flights and get bored reading the same thing for more than 2 hours, I allowed myself one of the usual indulgences reserved only for special occasions – I gorged on magazines for the flight. Since I like variety, I grabbed everything from Cosmo to Redbook, Lucky to Women’s Health, tucked them into the monstrous bag I was claiming as a “purse,” and nestled into my seat. As I thumbed through the magazines and tried to forget I was crammed into a space no bigger than a matchbox, I realized that every single one of the magazines had at least one, if not multiple articles, on “how to ___ your man.” Fill in the blank with everything from “please” to “understand.” A particular article in Redbook caught my attention for the fact that the entire article was about how to understand your man’s gestures. For example, I think the typical woman would agree that if given the cliché bowling ball for her birthday, she would not be happy (unless she was an avid bowler, of course.) The article went on to explain that the man is not being insensitive; no, instead he is simply trying to incorporate her into his world, assuming he likes to bowl. If he doesn’t, well that just doesn’t make any damn sense. According to the (male) author, us women should feel happy that he wants us to watch the Big Game with him because he thinks we are special enough to allow into his world. I have no problem with this. In fact, I truly appreciate the insight. Naturally, while reading this article, I thought that there must be a counter-article in GQ or some other male-audience magazine explaining to men the meaning of women’s actions; that when we ask that they not over imbibe at our cousin’s wedding, it’s not because we are being controlling – it’s because we want them to maintain their faculties and be supportive when Aunt Jane starts in on us about whatever it is Aunt Jane says that bugs us.

Several days later as I prepared for my return flight, I found my way over to the airport news stand and began thumbing through GQ to see what articles there were about women. Let me preface by saying that I wasn’t so naïve to think that there would be much on the subject. Let’s face it – me like things straight-forward and simple. 2 + 2 = 4. They don’t care about the “why.” But to my shock and disappointment, I did not find a single article that provided men any shred of guidance. Not a single flipping one! Not even something as stupid as “how to hit on girls at a bar.” Zip. Zilch. Nadda.

Perhaps herein lies one of the problems, and by “problem,” I truly mean a problem with a solution. If everything in Women’s World (movies, tv, magazine, conversations with our girl friends) spends a significant amount of time analyzing men’s behavior, and nothing in Men’s World even acknowledges women’s behavior, then how are we ever going to meet in the middle? It’s like when no one even knew that smoking was bad in the 1950’s, so no one even thought to try something different. Is Man’s World so devoid of even the acknowledgment that we think and act differently?

Meet “A,” my current boyfriend. We have been dating for several months. He’s a great guy, for the most part. He definitely, though, envelops me into his world. Thank you, Redbook, for explaining to me that I should feel special that he wants me there for everything in his life. But what about when I am frustrated that he habitually shows up late for me? Where’s the GQ article explaining to him that it makes me feel like a low priority? Even when I say that, the very thought sounds preposterous to him. “How can I feel like a low priority when he brings me to poker night with the guys?”, he asks with obvious agitation.

I wish I had some sort of insightful conclusion here, but I don’t. Some may say that then fine, us gals should just quit caring about how to figure our fellas out. Eh, I don’t think that will solve anything except make it harder on our female hearts. But I should would appreciate it if GQ ran a quick 3-paragraph quip about the female heart alongside the monthly-featured hottie. What a service to all relationships everywhere that would be.

First Time is a Charm....Hopefully

Ahem….Perhaps out of boredom and despite the mounting pile of work sitting on my desk, I’m starting a “blog,” which I confess, feels mildly lame. (No offense to the die-hard bloggers out there.) It has always seemed like a version of a “published diary.” One year for my 12th birthday I was given a little brown diary as a gift. I remember it clearly. It came leather hard-bound with gold, embossed letters across the front reading “DIARY.” But most significantly, it came with a gold-plated lock and two matching keys. The whole idea of the diary concept was to record one’s most inner-private thoughts, fears, etc. That night I commenced writing in my diary, which I continued religiously to do every night for….about a week. The problem with this diary was that it was dated. Yep. 365 pre-printed dates for that year. It was not an open place to keep my nubile 12 year-old thoughts – it was a vicious obligation that commanded me to keep tabs on my days and diligently record them every night. Soon the entries became shorter and shorter, and after several months, I confess that my “entries” became a series of check-marks and minus symbols, intended to represent “good day” or “ok day.” So, I can only surmise that the antiquated idea of a daily diary is neither practical nor enjoyable, and with that, all other notions of diaries can go out the window, as far as I’m concerned! And with it, this idea of secrecy. Now, don’t get me wrong. Some things should just stay private. But then again, c’est la vie and to each their own. If someone wants to publish their unedited and rawest emotions, hey, go for it. For me, though, I believe mine will be a little more sanitized.

Having said that, I (warn and) suspect that my blog will, in all likelihood, dwell primarily on relationships, be they romantic, familial, work-related, friend-related, or even concerning the daily encounters with strangers. Relationships seem to fascinate me – their patterns, lifecycles, and the imprints they leave. Let’s be honest, folks. I have a penchant for focusing on my own failed attempts at elusive “love.” And with brutal honesty I admit that I have gone through quite a few relationships in my life, none of which were successful (obviously), which I can’t help but think is largely dependent upon me. I’ve also made my fair (plus) share of poor decisions borne out of even poorer perceptions. So, rather than lament (because what’s the point in that?!?!), I laugh, get distracted, and bitch about it all here. I’d be severely out-of-my league and pathetically pretentions to event *hint* that these ramblings of mine could possibly be akin to the seemingly sacred SITC – I dare not even attempt that mimic because to do so would #1 be uber lame, #2 been repeatedly already done, and #3 an attempt to make reality as humorous as fiction, and let’s be honest, if our relationship struggles were as funny as televised, we’d be in stitches most of the day. Instead, I will unabashedly rant about my boyfriend, my friends’ BFs, my observations about BFs, and hopefully occasionally bring in something about other non-romantic relationships because I do think that a lot of how we interact in our romantic relationships can be connected to how we relate to people in general. So, without further adieu…..