Dr. Z's "No Trust, No Lust" Question
Find a Conversation
|Wed, 01-24-2007 - 4:59pm|
"If your experience is that you get jabbed and zinged by those closest to you on a semi-regular basis, it's hard to let down your guard. This is a big deal in sex past the lust stage, where women need to be relaxed enough to let go of their body boundaries, trust, let their arousal build.
Does that make sense?"
Interesting topic on so many levels, Dr. Z. I'm absolutely certain my wife suffers from this syndrome.
Does it have a name yet? May I suggest "Battered Trust Syndrome?" You could call it B.T.S. or possibly B.S. for short (Yes, that was snide. I apologize). I suspect if you gave it a name and talked about it a bit, it'd show up in the DSM. Every other "syndrome" seems to. And yes, I did just end a sentence with a preposition and I don't care.
There are a number of very interesting implications. Granted, a few of them are logical leaps, but nonetheless, I do believe our culture hears what you just said and arrives at these implications. Here they are, as I see them:
1. Because women appear to be more . . . fragile, men have a greater duty of care, at least a greater duty to care for the emotional wellbeing of the women around them (not to mention financial, physical (i.e. protection), etc). Men appear to be more resilient, at least emotionally, and possibly in a variety of other ways.
2. Ergo (as a result of #1), men are more responsible for the welfare of the women in their lives than the women in their lives are responsible for them. Therefore, men are required to make decisions, considering not only themselves, but the women in their lives (i.e. The "scope of impact" of a woman's decision-making is narrower. Women can just "feel" their way through decision-making, instead of actually having to consider the impact of a decision on the men in their lives.). Doesn't that sound like a leadership role? Do men really "naturally" (as a consequence of the nature of male/female relationships, their roles, etc) lead women? Should they?
3. The idea lends credence to the notion that "sex is merely a symptom of greater problems in the relationship. Resolve those and sex will take care of itself."
4. Women are not responsible for resolving relationship problems, particularly sexual ones, because a) Emotions are implacable forces of energy that are "un-overcomable," and heck, shouldn't be "overcome" anyway. The idea here is this: Emotions = Truth. Deny your emotions and you deny Truth. b) Men were responsible for causing the damage in the first place and hence, they should be the ones to clean them up. If your dad did the causing and your husband's stuck with the cleaning . . . doesn't matter. That's just inconvenient for your husband.
My take on each of these:
1. It's an inconvenient truth. Women ARE more fragile and men DO have a greater duty of care.
2. Again, inconveniently, not to mention unpleasantly, true. Men just seem to often forget that leadership roles don't include a license to boss. It simply means that the leader has more responsiblities.
3. A load of hooey that women have spewed to avoid making changes.
4. Another load of hooey.
P.S. Let's dispense with the "you're a mysoginist pig" aspersions. Assume that I've heard them before.