Letters to the Editor
-
@ Anonymous 1:32
I checked back and saw your letter and I hope you don't mind if I reply to it in direct terms. My desire is not to be hurtful, because I sense that, whatever you age, you have been through a world of hurt.
Perhaps that has influenced your thinking. I do not find what you write to be logical. Allow me to explain why.
First, you say this: "I've seen the code in action - guys take it as seriously as they take the vow to not cheat on their wives." You follow that by saying that by saying that many married men have hit on you. If men are as faithful to "the code" as they are to their wives, but they are often unfaithful to their wives, then what you say cannot be logical. The contradiction is obvious in your own statements.
Second, we have many statements from men here saying that they can look and remain faithful. I certainly hope so because attractive women are everywhere. I have no reason to believe that the men who say that they look but remain faithful are lying. This is because they needn't lie. Most, with their usernames, are essentially anonymous.
You say that looking leads to behavior. You are certainly correct in that it can. You are incorrect if you believe it sooner or later must. For you to be correct that looking is the dangerous evil that you seem to believe it is, you must assume that men act entirely upon instinct, that they have no moral sense. You must assume that they are entirely helpless against the instinct to look. If that is the case then women must all garb themselves in burkas.
At the risk of angering people, I am going to use the training metaphor again to show why a man is not like a dog. My dog does not chase cats while he is on lead. He rarely ever pulls on the leash. It has been a pain in the ass to get him to this point, but by God, I got him there. However, he does look at cats out of the corner of his eye. He is discreet. If I let off lead and I am not around, he will go crazy chasing those cats.
There may be some men like my dog. Let's hope not. What distinguishes human from animals is a moral sense. I believe that some of morality is innate. We were born to be good because we were born to think about the good, to contemplate deeply our obligations to others, and to develop OUR OWN MORAL CODES. Individually.
All dogs, whose behavior is closely related to that of wolves, have the same instinctual behavior. That behavior served their survival as canines. They don't have to THINK. When my dog chases a cat, he has not committed a moral transgression. Instead, he is obey a deep instinct called prey drive.
I don't want a man who is like a dog. I don't want to have to be jerking that leash. Only men who can think and think deeply about the moral and ethical issues that confront them in their relationships with others are worth bothering with. Humans are meant to think. To refuse to think and question is to be an utter failure as a human being.
Third, you seem to have gotten at least some of your ideas about women from reality shows. Reality shows have nothing to do with reality. They are developed precisely to appeal to our prey drive, to our baser instincts, and to confirm our more negative views of the world. I suggest that you stop watching them.
You yourself say that you are able to choose friends who will not stab you in the back. Focus upon that.
While I acknowledge that there are aspects of women being competitive with each other that I abhor, personally I have not had women I AM FRIENDS WITH trying steal my fellas. Never happened. Instead, in my life I have found women who were supportive, although not perfect.
Looking for perfect is a waste of time.
You reference Christianity. Ponder two men of similar faith, both former presidents. I doubt that Jimmy Carter has ever cheated on his wife. She did not need to train him. He had his faith and his moral beliefs. Bill Clinton couldn't keep it in his pants. No amount of training seemed to work. I have no doubt his wife jerked his leash many times. Apparently it took extensive therapy to get him in line.
I think the answer simple. One man cares deeply about others. The other man cares about politics. Both are responsible for their choices.
Women shouldn't waste their time training men. Instead, they should choose men worth loving who love them back.
-
Look on the bright side, letter writer
At least he's not checking out guys.
-
back at you
First, you say this: "I've seen the code in action - guys take it as seriously as they take the vow to not cheat on their wives." You follow that by saying that by saying that many married men have hit on you.
You misunderstand, but maybe I wasn't clear. The married guys hitting on me were not the FRIENDS of my HUSBANd - the 'code' is between guy FRIENDS. These guys, of course, were not taking the vows to their wives very seriously..but I still doubt any of them would have hit on their friend's wives.
I did NOT say looking leads to behavior - but it can, and to pretend otherwise is to be in denial.
I do not think that looking is a dangerous evil - I never characterized it that way at all. But while looking certainly doesn't necessarily lead to cheating, cheating almost always starts with looking. And, probably, the looker thinking 'it's OK to look, it's not as if I'm doing anything wrong."
What is with your didactic tone? I have no need to find a 'perfect man' - such doesn't exist in either male or female flavor.
And no, I don't get my cues about womanhood or manhood strictly from reality shows. But it can't be denied that those are real people on those shoes, acting that way because it's WHO THEY ARE. And it's not even a lowest common denominator on those shows. If you read more carefully, you'd see that by invoking the reality shows, my point was simply thus: those shows feature a gaggle of women viciously competing for men, undermining one another and taking the rejection to heart because it's easy to find women to do that. It's not quite as easy to get guys to sign up to ritually humiliate themselves by acting in such base ways for the attention of a woman.
I haven't been hurt at all by any guy 'looking'. Do I find it annoying? Sometimes - and I speak up, or, if it's incorrigible, I walk. But I'm not about to sit here and let guys say "oh, I can't help it". Yes, you can - you can always 'help' your behavior.
If guys weren't getting pleasure from looking at women, they would't do it. They ARE getting pleasure, but then basically protesting that this isn't the case.
I met my bf at a crowded cocktail party You know, he wasn't attracted to me because of my brains and wit, at least not at first. He looked, liked what he saw, liked the way I encouraged his attention, and they we started talking. It's not that different from how a lot of people meet. So then guys want their gfs to stand aside while, next time they're at a cocktail party, he continues looking as if he's on the market?
I'm sorry, but cheating statistics are real - and many people never intend to cheat, they simply find themselves uable to resist the opportunity when it presents itself and the conditions are such that they think they'll easily get away with it (and everyone thinks they'll easily get away with it).
I'll say it again - looking doesn't have to lead to cheating but cheating starts with looking. Guys are just playing dumb if they really can't understand why their gfs don't relish them assessing potential candidates, however benignly.