Monday, June 06, 2011

Telling Richard Jokes

"When women consider their own beauties, they are all alike unreasonable in their demands; for they expect their lovers should like them as long as they like themselves." - John Gay, The Beggar's Opera II ix.

"Cloris returning from the Trance
Which Love and soft Desire had bred,
Her tim'rous Hand she gently laid,
Or guided by Design or Chance,
Upon that Fabulous Priapus,
That Potent God (as Poets feign.)
But never did young Shepherdess
(Gath'ring of Fern upon the Plain)
More nimbly draw her Fingers back,
Finding beneath the Verdant Leaves a Snake."
-Aphra Behn, "The Disappointment" 101-10
No photo.
Young men are diseased by youth and cannot enjoy their strength of limb or asperity of figure for the cruelty of their own demon-whipped minds. When young women say that they think about and desire sex "all the time," they have little concept of the phrase. Young men die in the search, hazard mutilation in the quest, and often risk prison for the sake of their misunderstandings. No sane or rational person would do these things.

Mike Judge got his start on television with a series called "Beavis and Butthead" on MTV. In it, he satirized and parodied, quite accurately, the mentality of a fourteen to fifteen year old boy. Every phrase for these two was a dirty joke. Every picture was a chance to see breasts. No discussion of sex was vile enough. They wanted to consume women.

Because the show parodied boys, it inspired them. Mike Judge would continue to revile the duncification of America and to note it accurately in "Idiocracy," but kids imitated Butthead or Beavis (especially "Cornholio"). This is because we forgive young men in a way we do not forgive idiots. Young men can grow up to be considerate and intelligent mates. However, they have to go through this fever, this case of rabies.

Lust doesn't end, but the fever breaks. A constantly burning ember is fine: the grown man still has the desire, can flare up to ravenous if given a chance, but he isn't being chased down the streets by the demon with a hooked whip as much. He can laugh at the boy.

Women have more trouble. They can laugh at the boy, of course, but they're the targets of all those darts. Further, there is one very critical area where the sexes differ and the fire makes a huge difference, and that is in arousal and narcissism.

Beware any fool telling you rules about humans. Generally speaking, men are almost exclusively visual in their eroticism. We want to have sex on top of the covers, with the lights on, and, if possible, with Klieg lights. Women, in general, are more tactile and fantasy driven in their eroticism. This shows up in the never-ending argument couples have about pornography. She says, "Are you thinking about her?" He isn't. He isn't thinking at all. He's looking. Why is he looking? Because it is there. Don't "they" all look the same? Not at all, because each is a different one.

It also shows up in the infamous, "I don't want to because I feel ugly" issue. A man cannot understand this, because self-perception is the tiniest part of his eroticism. It also shows up in foreplay and cuddling, because the man is less tactile in his arousal.

You can get all of this from a hundred pop-psychology websites, though. What's more interesting is narcissism and the male/female split. A boy wants to "see it," as I've said. Young people of both sexes suffer from an inability to think like the other person. This is normal. Even if someone has empathy, life experience is necessary in order to know what the Other is like. Beginners in love are beginners. A girl who dresses up sexy for the right guy to notice and gets noticed by the wrong guy is simply projecting her view onto the world and finding out that it doesn't work that way. A girl who wears her nicest dress in front of a guy and then loses his attention to a "skank" who is wearing a halter top and no bra has used her standards and not realized his.

In general, though, women get it. They get that men are visual, because men tell them. Magazines tell them. Television tells them. Oh, they might not get the depravity of it, or believe it could be true, but they get it generally. Boys, though, get nothing.

A boy thinks, "I wanna see her bits. Why won't she just take off her clothes for me?" He's on the Internet, on Twitter, on chat, on Ritilin, and so he shows her his wagging staff. "See?! Bet that turns you on," he thinks.

So, the Internet is full of penis photos. The current "scandal" on the Internet isn't one of them. It's actually a picture of a marital aid (link may be upsetting to sensibilities and politics). Female bloggers are puzzled at why, oh why, "men" keep photographing genitals. The thing is, few men do.

A man, a grown man past the age of eighteen, who is photographing and showing these pictures is either a beginner at love, a complete beginner when it comes to knowing women, or is, in fact, an abuser. It takes a narcissist, a man who refuses to believe women when they say that such things are not stimulating or even a turn-off, to keep on going, believing that his magic wand is so mighty and special that it will make knees weak. It takes a rapist or abuser also -- a man who thinks, "I don't care how you feel. This is what I'm going to use." A man who sends such a photo is either a repellent virgin or an abusive narcissist, or worse.

This, incidentally, is how I knew that the Congressman in the "scandal" was not guilty. His politics are empathic and devoted to looking out for the weak. They don't match the mentality.

Why, though, with this knowledge being rather intuitive and obvious for those of us who have -- you know -- had relationships -- are television stations going on and on and on and on and on and on showing the photo and repeating the charges as if there were a story? Why are they making every pun possible? Why are they putting Beavis in charge of the Nightly News?

We forgive boys the way we forgive women in childbirth cursing or delirious patients ranting, but what seems to be happening here is a delight in reviving the phase. The news seems to be wanting to relive the worst time of life. Why? What is gained? Who is enlightened?

By the way, the "best" Richard joke I know is Morris.


Anonymous said...

Some uneveness; but some really strong writing, too. Your passion serves you well here.

Keith said...

I'm surprised you haven't removed this post yet, in light of Weiner's admissions. Oops. :^)

The Geogre said...

I also haven't removed my Edwards 2008 sticker from my car.

I stand by what I said, and the last paragraph is, in fact, what shocked me. It made no sense from anything I know of humans for someone with his apparent empathy and sympathy (and hot wife) to be doing this. What shocked me was not the dick, but the dickishness.

Keith said...

Edwards 2008 sticker: *ouch* again.

Scott said something along the same lines: seemed like a genuinely good guy, etc.

You might know me well enough to realize that I don't care what a person does in privacy, so long as all parties are informed and consenting, and no hypocrisy is involved. What set me off is the lying part, which was apparent the moment AW declined the FBI offer to easily track down the "hacker". I knew (and publically stated) at that point he was most certainly lying. Which was stupid and confusing... he had to know the lie wouldn't hold up very long, so why not just come out with the truth from the beginning? Was he really that frightened of the repercussions? And if *that's* the case... then why wasn't he smart enough to NOT do it in the first place?

Which, of course, rather supports your observations about males in general, eh? Except some of us never really grow up past the 18yo stage, I guess. :^)

P.S. - Hiya, G! Hope all is well, or at least reasonably "not bad."