Friday, 22 July 2011

Why did that @#$%^* bastard divorce me?

Because he's a lying, two-faced sonofabitch. He can't keep it in his pants. He's a sex addict. He's a goddamn perverted deviant jackin' off to Internet porn. He's an ungrateful, unfaithful, untrustworthy, underhanded un-man with a tiny d**k. He's a selfish @#$%^* whore-chasing douchebag that deserves to be chemically castrated then banished to some far-flung South Sea island where he'll be forced to work on a chain gang for the rest of his rotten miserable life.

Ah, okay. Now tell me what you really think.

I browse around a few blogs written by some divorcées who have expounded at times on the more questionable traits of their former loved ones. I have previously joked that at times the prose imparts a certain raw emotion which makes me wonder, as a man, whether I would feel more comfortable while reading this text if I was wearing a cup. I have also joked about locking up the paring knives as I have no doubt that if I had been in the same room as the author when she was penning her blog post, I would now be singing falsetto.

One blogger sometimes answers emails from readers who ask questions or ask for comments on their particular situation. The author warns that she's not a professional but tends to give out fairly well balanced responses to these emails. Recently, she replied to an email where the woman told her tragic story: husband divorces her and is shortly afterwards married to another woman. Now the writer was asking about how to get over this but she went on to stress that she didn't want him back because he is obviously a liar, a cheat, and he doesn't care for his children or for her, his ex-wife.

I got to thinking - a very dangerous activity for me - about why. Why would Man A leave woman B to end up with woman C? Yes, yes, he's a lying, two-faced sonofabitch. But why did he do this? What would compel man A to leave woman B? Was there something about woman B that he had grown to hate? Or did woman C have something that woman B did not? If woman B knew what man A hated, would she do whatever necessary to correct it? If woman B knew what man A found so attractive in woman C, would woman B attempt to get it? Yes, yes, he's a selfish @#$%^* whore-chasing douchebag but that doesn't quite answer my question.

Bill Clinton had nine sessions of bobbing for apples in the Oval Office. - Am I the only one who noticed what you get when you change the letter V of the word "oval" to an R? - Why did he do it? Yes, yes, he's just another horny dog who can't keep it in his pants. But why did he do it?

In looking at Clinton, I am reminded about the question of celebrity. Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones has slept with gawd only knows how many women. Gene Simmons of Kiss has a similar reputation. Basketball legend Wilt Chamberlain made the absurd statement that he had slept with 20,000 women. Whatever the exact numbers are, there seems to be a case for the idea that famous men are the target of those who would like to add a salacious entry in their memoir. So, while we're all jumping on our moral high horse to vilify Tiger Woods for his supposed 120 woman record, I am reminded of this little scenario.

I put you in front of an open bank vault and tell you that you are free and clear to take any amount you want; it is guaranteed that no one will ever know and that you will never get caught. The question now is not whether you'll be punished; the question is merely whether you can overcome any moral compunction which would prevent you from taking the money. Yes, you could choose to not take the money but this would in no way benefit anybody or hurt anybody. The only aspect of this is that the money isn't yours. You would be taking money that wouldn't belong to you.

What would you do? I'm betting you'd take it. Why? Well, why not? Leaving the money benefits absolutely nobody on Earth; it would only benefit your conscience.

Apparently, back in the late 50's, a postal worker in San Francisco found a bag full of unmarked bills (unmarked = the bills could not have been traced) which had apparently fallen off a Brink's truck. - How does a bag of money "fall off" a truck? - The worker turned the bag in. When the story broke, the postal worker supposedly received letters from all over the United States telling him he was an idiot; he should have kept the money. I'd say those people wouldn't think twice about cleaning out the vault in my devised scenario above!

Returning to the question of celebrity: a guy has a woman throw herself at him. It's a sure thing; it's an all systems are go for launch. The question now is this: not having sex with the woman benefits nobody on Earth; it is now just a question of the man's own conscience. Why do it? Well, why not? When opportunity knocks and all that.

But let's come back to Clinton. Billy isn't or wasn't a rock star but we could argue that being the president of the United States does have rock star status. However presidents don't quite have the same promiscuous public image as, let's say, the members of Mötley Crüe. In fact, Barack Obama comes across as a well-grounded family man who is pretty much a nice guy. But why did Bill do it? As I said previously, is the answer merely that he's just another horny dog who can't keep it in his pants? Yes, yes, I've heard the pundits talking about the trappings of power and how the guy in question thinks he's entitled or thinks he's not going to get caught or maybe doesn't think at all and works on some sort of instinctual gut reaction lack of blood in the brain for clear thinking capricious It seemed like a good idea at the time act of stupidity well idiot I guess you didn't imagine those consequences.

But why did he do it? The answer that I'm searching for is something like this analogy. You sit down and have a nice meal. You're satiated. You're full. Your hunger has been satisfied. Okay, at this point you stand up, walk out to your car, drive down the street to the nearest McDonalds and then order a Happy Meal. Why would you do that? I said you had a nice meal. Maybe it wasn't a nice meal. I said you were satiated. Maybe you weren't satiated; maybe your hunger had not been satisfied. I suppose we could explore the possibility of you having an eating disorder as it seems strange to be eating a Happy Meal after you just had a meal but I would back up to the meal itself and conclude there was something wrong: it wasn't a nice meal or it didn't really fill you up. Then again, maybe you're just an ungrateful @#$%^* douchebag who doesn't appreciate all the hard work I put into making you a nice meal. Then again, I'm not much of a cook so I wouldn't be surprised if you went out for a Happy Meal. Let me get my coat; I'll join you.

I digress. Was Bill not satisfied? Was Hillary not playing pin the tail on the donkey enough? Does Hillary bob for apples? Yes, yes, Bill is a horny dog but there's got to be more to it than that. Nobody gets up from the dinner table and drives down to McDonalds for a Happy Meal just because they are an ungrateful @#$%^* douchebag. I'm sorry; there has to be another explanation.

I keep bringing this following story up in my postings but I think it's a good illustration.

Back in the early 90's, I'm watching one of the talk shows, not quite as elevated as Oprah but not as low as Jerry Springer. A couple is being interviewed but we're given to understand they have a secret. Commercial break. We return to see... two women. I look closer. Woman number two is the husband; he's dressed up in drag. The wife explains that her husband has always had a fetish for women's clothes and once a month he dresses up and the 2 of them go out for a drink together as 2 female friends. She goes on to say that her husband is a wonderful man, a great husband, a good lover and an excellent father; he just seems to have this one special quirk and it is the only oddity out of an otherwise exemplary human being.

Now just mull that one over for a minute. We have a gentleman who has a fetish for woman's clothes. How in heaven's name did this couple arrive at a point where the man could bring this up with his wife? Who knows, maybe he told her about his fetish before they were married and she married him anyways. The point is that their relationship was open and honest enough that they could discuss this. But look at the alternative. What if she had reacted to this discovery with, "Eew. Get away from me your goddamn weird-oh pervert!" Well, there's one relationship which would have come to a screeching halt and there's one guy who would say to himself that he would never, ever again speak frankly with anybody about "his secret".

At some point she must have weighed the pros and cons and felt the balance sheet showed more benefits than liabilities. But picture what would have happened if the man felt so ashamed of his feelings that he never talked about them with his wife; he kept them hidden. Do I see a potential headline? "Respected family and business man Fred Schwartz, seen here dressed up in drag in a photograph taken in the local bar Tom's Eatery, was arrested this past Saturday."

In the recent movie Beginners (my review), starring amongst others Christopher Plummer who is just fabulous, the writer / director Mike Mills recounts the true story of his own father who at the age of 75 after the death of his wife and five years before his death, comes out and declares his homosexuality. Yep, this is the story of a man who grew up in an era when homosexuality was considered a disease that could be cured. He married, had children and for all outwards appearances was your normal heterosexual family man. I still find this unbelievable. A guy spends nearly his entire life repressing who he is. How did he manage to keep it together for such a long time?

We are all part of a society which imposes on us rules and traditions which may be good or bad. We grow up with the idea of conforming so as to supposedly gain the approval of our family and our peers. Not gaining that approval can mean being humiliated, condemned and even ostracized. That fear is enough to make anybody shut up, hide themselves and never talk about their true feelings. How can anybody be honest if they are afraid of being criticized? Now I can hear anyone of a number of people saying, "I want an open and honest relationship." Okay, sounds good in theory. Now, for all you ladies, how about your husband calls you aside for a quiet tête-à-tête and tells you he has a fetish for women's clothes and would like to dress up and go out to a bar with you? Do I hear the expression "freak-out"?

This is an extreme example but illustrative of the dilemma. For our entire lives we have had it pounded into our heads what "normal" is and we're scared s**tless of deviating from that standard as I said out of fear of being classified as "not normal". I read in the papers stories of people doing what is reported as deviant behaviour. I read blogs written by divorcées about husbands found out as sex addicts, porn addicts and gawd only knows what else. I ask myself, "Why?" He's a f**king bastard? He's a @#$%^* douchebag? He has a tiny penis? These are good profane catch phrases for venting one's anger and expressing both surprise and disappointment that life isn't necessarily what you thought it was, but there is an underlying issue which has not been identified never mind addressed.

By the way, I suppose statistically, the above is applicable most of the time to the male sex. That's why the title of the article suggests a woman asking the question. We could spend some time discussing the social origins of this behaviour associated with men - Yeah, yeah, he's a @#$%^* bastard. Alright, I got it! - but occasionally I read a certain blog written by a woman who describes with a lot of frankness how after 23 years of marriage with kids, she ran off with another man. It didn't work out and now she's trying to find her way back.

Curiosity
I want to present a couple of ideas to parents reading this blog. I apologise for not being able to give you the name of this controversial educator - it escapes me right at the moment - but I'll fill it in later if I remember or if another reader can help me out.

Dr. X had the idea that children are curious about a lot of things including their own bodies, the bodies of the opposite sex and all the issues relating to reproduction, sex, etc. His theory was that by not answering questions right up front, we were not satisfying the curiosity of a child and by not satisfying it, that curiosity would develop later in life into something more than a normal interest. In his "test school", he apparently followed a policy of speaking frankly with kids. He pointed out that at the ages of 6, 7, 8 or 9, children would quite innocently ask about their sexual organs, the organs of the opposite sex and what they were for. Dr. X would tell them. He would tell them everything.

The results of this social experiment were considered controversial and critics took the good doctor to task about his findings but let me report what he said. His claim was that later in life, boys demonstrated a normal, healthy interest in sex. I remember the doctor saying that when the boys of his school ended up at university with the general population, boys being boys would pass around pornography titillated by the naked women. Dr. X claimed his boys were not particularly interested. Why? Their curiosity had been satisfied years ago. Not responding to innocent questions earlier in life saw a normal healthy curiosity turn into an abnormal curiosity or maybe even an obsession.

Now we could debate whether this idea is true or not but I can point out some odd aspects of my own childhood. My parents never spoke to me about sex. Never. I had some sex education classes in school which discussed reproduction and to a limited extent the mechanics of sex, but I never had any frank discussions of not just sex, but "making love", relationships, feelings and love. Everything I learned about all this came from books. Now admittedly, I was a little unusual in this regard. By the time I was 16, I had read over a thousand books. I had read absolutely everything: astronomy, science fiction (fav!), science, romance, biography plus James Bond, porn (natch!) and even medical books. Yes, my father was a medical man and we had a copy of Gray's Anatomy in the house, the illustrated bible of the human body and I could rattle off such sexual terminology as fraenulum, perineum and labia minora. I lost my virginity when I was fifteen to a 19 year old girl. During our four month affair, I remember her saying to me on two separate occasions, "Are you sure you haven't had sex before? You know an awful lot about it and you seem to know what you're doing." Who says reading the instruction manual is for wimps?

Okay, maybe I was just sexually precocious but my point is to compare this with other guys. On page 2 of Naomi Wolf's article "The Porn Myth", she writes, "The young men talk about what it is like to grow up learning about sex from porn."

Cindy Gallop is a New York entrepreneur, author and self-professed cougar. In her book "Make Love Not Porn", she talks about dating younger men and discovering their entire sex education has come from porn movies. Many would immediately jump to the hasty conclusion that porn is bad but Ms. Gallop points out that the issue is not porn at all. We all do it, yet we don't talk about it. Most parents are too embarrassed to teach their children about sex and talk to them about the issues surrounding it. ... Most countries around the world have not formalized and integrated sex education into the educational system and curriculum. ... hardcore porn has become, be default, the sex education of today.

Is it me or WTF? Where are the parents? Where is the school system? Can any of us who have grown up in the "dark ages" overcome our own fears, prejudices and shame to talk about sex? Geesh, talk with our children? Heck, we'd have a difficult time talking with a professional counsellor about our own sex lives!

Final Word
What happens if you have a secret but are scared to death of the reaction if the secret is uncovered? You feel shame. You're apprehensive. What happens if the secret does come out? You feel embarrassed, defensive; you may even go on the attack. The best defence is an offence! "You like to do what? Eew. You are a disgusting degenerate."

I can't help thinking that there is more to this story than he's a @#$%^* douchebag. I can't help thinking that divorce after divorce is taking place because of a @#$%^* douchebag who is really spent a lifetime scared s**tless of being labelled a disgusting degenerate. I'm certain that there are some truly bad people out there. Adolf Hitler was a bad man. John Wayne Gacy, the American serial killer who raped and murdered 33 teenage boys, was a bad man. I just find it hard to believe that every single @#$%^* bastard one day decides to leave his wife and children, ruin his reputation, besmirch his good name, alienate his kids and turn himself into a "bad man" just because he's a douchebag. He actually wants to be bad man as opposed to being loved and admired? Really?

The truth shall set you free.
- John 8:32

Is it possible that a person's shame about sex, their guilt, their apprehension about even talking about sex is so great, so overwhelming, they would actually chicken out and prefer to run away rather than face the risk, the huge risk, the colossal, mammoth, gigantic, enormous risk of being condemned, humiliated, ostracized, quartered and castrated by society? The father in the film Beginners comes out at the age of 75 in the 1990s. He was born into a world where homosexuality was considered a disease. The American Psychiatric Association only declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973. (Wikipedia)

Somehow I think there is more to this issue than meets the eye. In the meantime, however, all @#$%^* bastards should hide in the closet until the coast is clear or age 75, whichever comes first.


References

my blog: Men are just a bunch of @#$%^* sex addicts!

my blog: Book Review: Make Love Not Porn by Cindy Gallop

Telegraph - July 22/2011
Children as young as five 'should be taught about abortion'
The draft report on sex education, drawn up by the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, will be issued to local authorities and education bodies across the world by the end of October. However, it has been strongly criticised for suggesting topics such as masturbation should be discussed with young children, removing the right of parents to broach the issues when they see fit.

The guidelines state that teachers should discuss the idea that "girls and boys have private body parts that can feel pleasurable when touched by oneself" to pupils who are just five years old. By the age of 12, it recommends that children should be taught about the "right to and access to safe abortion".

The report is intended to help countries improve sex education and sexual health, especially in the developing world. UNESCO officials stress that it is up to governments and educational authorities whether they follow the advice.

I note this line in the article: However, it has been strongly criticised for suggesting topics such as masturbation should be discussed with young children, removing the right of parents to broach the issues when they see fit. When parents see fit? Like about never?

2011-07-22

Site Map - William Quincy BelleFollow me on Twitter

3 comments:

Big a said...

ah cheaters ... they make it so hard for the non-cheaters to be trusted sometimes ...

Anonymous said...

My conundrum (which continues to haunt me 14 yrs after the breakup, primarily bcz I never got any straight answers, dammit!) is why the @#$%^* bastard took up w/an older woman (hey, at least he was original in that regard!) & ultimately divorced me when I had denied him NOTHING. Needless to say, I felt completely betrayed & humiliated; it was as if I had opened my soul to him, & he repaid me by grinding it into the filth.

BigLittleWolf said...

There are so many potential discussions in this discussion, I don't even know where to begin. (Loved the jeu de mots on oval office; pin the tail on the donkey???)

Something you didn't note, however - a woman with a sonofabitch is still ranked higher on the social ladder in many circles than a woman on her own. There really is a tacit hierarchy of marital and non-marital status, based on age of course.

For a woman, once past a certain age (we could debate the age - 35? 40? 42?) - widowed is better than divorced, divorced is better than single, and "has had at least one child" is still considered better than never had a child.

No data, but just sayin...

Getting back to the SOBs and the variations on strange and scummy behavior, emotion (and desperation?) can justify pairing up with almost anyone, or looking the other way for far worse than a few dalliances.

As to the occasional hubster-in-drag, at least they might enjoy shopping together. Is that so bad?

(Add another smile, please.)

Fascinating discussion.