But Really, I'm Not
A bimbo, that is. I was actually quite amused by being called "kind of bimboesque." And I'm not at all upset about it. But it did get me to thinking about false dichotomies. You know, like the Madonna vs. whore dichotomy. Or the bimbo vs. emasculating bitch dichotomy.
Somewhere there has to be room to be a multi-facted person. A woman can enjoy girlie things without being a bimbo. We can be intelligent, educated, well-read people while still enjoying frivolity. Whatever happened to balance? Being intelligent, educated, and well-read (and a feminist) doesn't automatically assign a woman to the emasculating bitch category. Enjoying frivolous pursuits doesn't automatically assign her to the bimbo category either.
I realize that a lot of men believe that women are shallow for focusing on their appearance so much. Men, on average, don't worry nearly as much as women do about whether or not they're fat or pretty or well-dressed. And, yes, those are all surface qualities. However, men, on average, do worry about whether or not their women are fat or pretty or well-dressed. Which is just as surface. Most men are able to get beyond that when seeking a partner (much like most women have concerns beyond their appearance), but some cannot.
Physical attraction is, without a doubt, a part of any romantic relationship. A lot of it is psychological, however, even though we don't always realize it. Haven't you ever had the experience of meeting a drop-dead gorgeous member of the opposite sex (or same sex, if that's who you are) only to wonder, after talking to them, how you could have ever been attracted to them? Or, conversely, the experience of meeting a member of the opposite sex (or same sex if that's who you are) that doesn't seem all that attractive at first, but as you get to know them suddenly becomes more attractive? Their physical appearance didn't change. Your perception of it did. That is psychological.
Now before anyone breaks in with a "but there are a lot of women who value men based primarily on surface qualities like how much money they make," yes, there are women who do that. I have actually met some of them. I dislike them intensely. Doesn't the argument "Well, she did it too!" or "She started it!" seem rather juvenile, though?
Comments
See there is the thing I don't get about the difference between men and women, Men (allegedly) don't care about appearance, but women do. So women spend a lot more time making sure they look good for a guy who really isn't that worried about how she looks!? Care to 'slpain that to me? Women allegedly care about their partners apperance, so what do men do? Smell the pit area of their shirt to make sure it isn't too offensive and call it good. You would think men would spend more time preening and women would spend less time if the stereotypes fit.
And before you say men care about how their partner looks more than women do, where did the term coyote ugly come from? There is some truth behind the invention of the term. After last call many men will go home with anything - hell it doesn't have to be last call. Women seem more selective. Somewhere in my ruminations there is a lesson in there for all the friday night batchelors - clean yourself up a bit and you will shine next to all the other unpolished schmucks at the meat market.
Posted by: Justin | September 9, 2003 08:14 PM
Well, maybe out in the hinterlands of Iowa, men don't care about their partner's appearance. But it ain't like that in the big city.
Posted by: Lesley | September 9, 2003 08:43 PM
Sure it ain't like that in the big city. Check back in at last call and see the meat market in action.
In general as the clock winds on men care less about her appearance and more about (how did Doonesbury put it?) dating oneself.
Some men do care, some men act like they do, some don't care. Now the men in Iowa ... well I don't know but they sure raise a lot of hogs there ...
Posted by: Justin | September 9, 2003 08:54 PM
Yeah, okay, what people do when they're blitzed isn't really an indicator of what they do when they're not. I'm also not talking about one-night stands, when a "they all look the same in the dark" mentality may apply. I'm talking about a partner.
Posted by: Lesley | September 9, 2003 09:36 PM
To quote another redneck
"Well, I'm not talkin bout locking down forever, baby.
That would be too demanding.
I'm just talkin bout two lonely people
who might reach a little understanding.
I'm not talkin bout knocking out heaven
with whether we're wrong or we're right.
I'm not talkin bout hooking up and hanging out.
I'm just talkin bout tonight."
Posted by: Justin | September 9, 2003 10:03 PM
I guess the bush I am beating around is the fact that there are far more bimboesque men than there are women.
And I highly doubt there is much bimboesque about you.
Posted by: Justin | September 9, 2003 10:05 PM
What we seem to be talking about is two vs three dimensional characterizations of the sexes. There are generalities that you can make about men and women that don’t apply to individuals. Some of it is more hard-wired then we care to admit. What we are talking about essentially is playing roles or assuming roles that are arch typical. Is it fun? Sure, it can be a kick in the pants. The problem is when people see us behaving that way and make value judgements based on what is atypical behaviour for us as individuals.
That is why Halloween is such a popular holiday. Want to act out a role of fantasy? Put on a costume. I have known women who I was sure were chronically, terminally sexually constipated who, on Halloween, always seem to select a "sexy" costume, playboy bunny, or a "vamp" vampires. Guys like to get together with other guys and "act out" their male aggression fantasies far from the prying eyes of women who might be taken back by their apparent willful misogyny.
You make a good point about the X factor of attraction, I am much more attracted to women who express themselves well and who have "quick" minds. I also love mushy romantic movies, so enjoying a Gene Kelly (da man!) musical with a women with whom I was enjoying a fascinating conversation regarding the relative benefits existential disinformation only moments before does not seem at all inconsistent.
Trouble is many people require a two dimensional world view, it's for us or against us, smooth or crunchy, Miracle Whip or mayonnaise. Many people cannot allow themselves the ability to enjoy the pleasure of being someone else or playing a role or basically engaging in play time. Dietz wrote a post about this where he found a group of adults who like to engage in childhood games as a means of what we used to call "Blowing off steam". Of course some people enjoy it too much to the point where they don't know where the role ends and their true personality begins. and for too many people staying "grounded in reality" is a prim directive and anything else is "frivolous". It also highlights the amount of stock people like to put in first impressions which typically is a projection of the value that they place on making a good first impression. One comment I get a lot from people is, "god, when I first meet you I thought you were really weird." Fact is, I still am weird, but they have simply gotten to know me better and they know that the real me is as grounded in what we like to think of as "the real world" as most other people.
So my advice is bimbo away and if people get the wrong idea it's really their issue, not yours.
Posted by: Rick DeMent | September 10, 2003 08:45 AM
No, you're not anything remotely resembling a bimbo. You dig some funky and feminine things - shoes, make up, etc. - but we all have our silly little likes and dislikes. You're one of the most intelligent, capable, successful, and balanced people - note, I said people, not women -I know. Kudos!
Posted by: Jon | September 10, 2003 10:51 PM