Men.
We talk about heroes, sure, their attributes, flaws, larger-than-life accomplishments and big-in-all-ways corporeal manifestations. Yet sometimes I feel like we consider our emancipated selves, w/ our rights to read and write books about chicks like us getting their own in life and the some-some department, somehow on a higher and purer plain from the one on which real-life guys do their gettin'.
One discussion that always gets me thinking about this is the erotic romance v. porn debate. I'm not sure it'd be a bad thing to admit that some erotic books for women are read simply to get off. Nor would the world end if we tried to dig that there're emotionally healthy guys who use porn to fantasize and still can love their wives and think they're hot, too.
But to understand that, we'd have to take time to listen to what guys think, even when it makes us uncomfortable or shatters our black/white notions of what we deserve in relationships as Feminists. Simon Oaks, magnificently reformed rake and - yeah, this is almost too sexy to believe, girlfriends - British racecar driver-turned tamed husband has written just the book to shake us up - though his publisher admits that "Will Marry for Food, Sex, and Laundry " is an "unconventional throwback of a marriage manual...the politically incorrect blueprint you need to make your man commit and have a good laugh while you do it."
Ah, and there's the ticket to understanding how one can lead men around by their, em, baser needs, while really learning to understand them; we listen to what they have to say filtered through our easily forgotten senses of humor.
Oaks says there are generalizations and stereotypes about guys that really should be paid attention to if you want to learn anything about how to have a lasting relationship. But he also believes women deserve more than many guys are able to give - and it's up to a woman to learn her worth, and when to cut her losses in a relationship.
"Will Marry for Food" is a book that may make you cringe at the same time you're nodding your head in acknowledgment ‘cause Oaks is so damn spot on. And the best part of his no-punches-pulled, guy's-guy advice is this: A woman needs to ask for what she wants and needs, loudly and clearly. When she repeatedly doesn't get what she needs? Walk away, stay away, and move on to the man who deserves her.
Yet even when we find the guy worthy of the brilliance that is us, himself still can drive us batty. If you're in that sitch, you may want to head to MyHusbandIsAnnoying.com to commiserate with a woman whose spouse drives her so nuts she created a blog to lovingly share her sorry lot in life -- from her guy's sophomoric adoration for jokes about flatulence, to his need to speak w/ a really bad Irish accent.
Some folks are irate about the way they believe this woman is dissing her husband. I kinda see the love in it. Of course, my husband sent me the link in an email, a single line accompanying it: For your reading pleasure.
Funnily enough, he didn't include our favorite tribute to relational bliss: If I'da killed you when I met you, I'd be out by now.
How do you feel real-life men and their needs/socializations/hard wiring/desires/quirks/etc are respected when being talked about among romance readers and writers? What are some of your favorite romances in which the hero and heroine already are married and are trying to keep it together?
***Check out this awesome new romance community that invites the male point of view in a big way: Every Wednesday, the RomanceUniversity.org features "Anatomy of the Male Mind," with different authors and guests attempting to answer the mysterious question, "What could he possibly be thinking?"
becke_davis
on
debbie, we do so create the monsters, don't we? You totally are talking about something Oaks addresses in this book. Again, sometimes it takes years to realize it, and figure out not only how to ask for what we want/need, but to help our guys figure out how to give it to us. When we figure out how they take in information about relationships and sex, etc., it makes it so much easier to get what we need -- or cut our losses. Having a guy like Oaks give us a glimpse at what a lot of guys think and feel is really helpful. And what the publishers call 'politically incorrect' really at times simply is saying something like, 'you know, it may be the 21st C, but there are still some guys who ain't gonna buy the cow when they can get the milk for free.'
And the book's geared toward 'How to get him -- and keep him.' So we're talking about it being for women who are looking for long-term relationships and can't figure out what they're 'doing wrong.' Oaks is saying, sometimes you are doing it wrong, and sometimes you can't possibly get it right with this particular type of guy -- unless you understand what rules he plays by.
I'm very happy to direct authors and readers to your very fine digs at RomanceUniversity.org. I love your mottos: RU Ready? and "Empower Writers, Entertain Readers and Understand Men."amyskf, part of the point of the book is one a lot of women need to hear: chicks need to adjust their thinking and behavior, too. If we want to "be heard," we need to learn how to ask for what we want and gain the skills to i.d. our needs. We can't just complain a guy doesn't give us what we want if we think "if he loved me, he'd know.' He's also saying, yeah, some guys aren't worth having, but there are some who may be worth having, and Oaks says he knows how these guys think and his book can help women dig through the 'jerk stuff' to get to the stuff that makes these guys good partners in the long run.
And your line about being married to guys from the 50s is really right for lots of women. Disappointment for some women 'of a certain age' came when they thought they gained their voices in the 70s/80s and asked for what they wanted 'loud and clear.' Problem was, guys raised by guys from the 50s weren't taught how to 'hear' them, or follow through. And they weren't all that unhappy w/ the food/sex/laundry set-up. Takes lots of hard work -- and a guy who wants to connect -- to change that cycle.
The idea of "training" men is interesting to me, cause I think they'd hate to think they were being trained, no? But I know how much you respect your husband, having known you for some time, so I know you mean that men like to know the rules and somebody's gotta lay em down in a relationship in terms of household tasks. I did something similar in our home when I realized it really wasn't my job to do the domestic stuff along w/my job -- even when I was "only" raising kids -- even though I was brought up by a domestic mom. So I stopped doing stuff, too. And said if you want the house cleaner than it is and you're not willing to help pick up after the kids, you're going to write the checks to have it that way. But I learned two things: First, he didn't mind writing the checks, which probably says something about how little he wanted to do the work. And second, he never asked me to do the work, I just took it on out of ridiculous sense of responsibility and my idea of gender roles. That said, it was working for him, so he didn't complain or try to strike a balance.
Part of getting what we want from men is about knowing how to formulate the query. I didn't always know how to do it, but I do now. I like to kvetch and moan w/friends about our man probs. But when I ask the question 'what do you want to change and what's your responsibility toward your happiness?" I find women trip over their tongues. We've learned to complain and feel a sense of hoplessness. But once we learn to formulate the questions -- and realize the world won't end when we ask for something in a way that states our seriousness in making certain we get it - - it gets easier and easier.
