What women want (Part I)



I have decided to undertake a topic that most men would not even fathom. It is something that the entire male species has been speculating on for well.......since God pulled a fast one on Adam. What is it that women really want. I'm not going to be so bold as to say I know for sure. The truth is that I really have no definitive answer. I'm hoping that by dissecting the female psyche, especially from the male perspective, I might shed some light for the rest of my unenlighten brethren. Another reason that I am writing this is the overabundance of media perpetuating male ignorance on the part of the female of the species. We may be lost but we are not completely worthless. Publications like Cosmopolitan and Marie Claire and shows like that blasphemous (yes I said blasphemous) Sex and the City have warped the American perspective on relationships and the balance in said relationships. A big fact that many shows and publications have failed to mention, and something that makes the question of what women want infinitely more difficult, is that women are inherently fucked up. Ladies, before you report me to NOW and send hate mail, let's examine some behaviors that perplex men and why we just are having a hard time understanding you.

1. The need to migrate in unison to the bathroom. Why? Men do understand that you do not watch each other use the bathroom and that you are actually talking. But the confusing thing is that men actually use the bathroom. The public urinal is not a place to discuss anything. Men who do try to talk when using the bathroom are just plain strange and have been long since disavowed. I remember going to junior high dances and seeing girls flock to the tiny girls bathroom like they were taking a pilgrimage to Mecca. In junior high the topic of conversation was pretty simple: what boy was attractive, what said attractive boy said or did not say, and what girl was being a bitch. From what I have gathered things have not progressed too much in the past decade. For men, the bathroom represents an intimate area. Some of us do our best thinking there. We do NOT want to be disturbed and DEFINITELY do not want to converse. I couldn't even imagine starting a conversation with, "Hey Sean I'm going to the bathroom. You want to come?" Sounds like an auspicious beginning to a gay porn video.

2. The need to women have to deconstruct themselves in order to fit a standard of beauty. What I mean by this is why women, starting at such a young age, have to augment themselves so much to look like some malnourished model. I teach high school English and it boggles my mind to see these young women obsess over a damn dress. I will admit that girls did get the short end of the stick on formal dress wear. For guys, all we have to do is rent a tuxedo, shower, shave (for those lucky bastards who can grow facial hair), and maybe buy a flower for your date. I've seen girls get their shoes dyed (which is just fucked up beyond all recognition, or F.U.B.A.R.), spend absurd amounts of money on a dress they saw in Seventeen magazine, get their hair done, get their nails done, and all that other crap. Even in college I noticed how women dressed. Most girls said they did it for themselves and not for attention. Well I'll suspend my disbelief but let me pose a question. I spent my undergrad career in Champaign, IL (which gets REALLY cold in the winter and fall) and saw countless number of females wearing halter tops, ass floss (thongs) and skirt so short I could see the holy land itself. What kind of fashion statement is that? I value a woman who does take pride in her appearance but.....DAMN! All that crap is not necessary. Another thing, if your boobs or thongs guys are going to stare. Its inevitable. If you don't want to be stared at wear a belt or clothes that fit. We like tits and ass and we have no control over our roaming eyes......so the ball is in your court. Its an asinine argument to hear women defend their clothing decisions. EVERYONE likes to be complemented. It just seems, to me at least, that women are doing a lot of unnecessary work. Ladies, the female form is naturally beautiful, don't ruin it augmenting yourself into something you are not. Plus guys are not exceptionally particular in terms of what you are wearing.

3. Mud baths. The entire concept is an oxymoron. I just had to throw that in there. It's something that has always bothered me.

4. The last thing I want to deal with on part I of my little investigation is the female language. Yes, there is definitely a difference between the two sexes in terms of communication. The main difference that I noticed is the change in vocabulary in same-sex conversation. When men talk to other guys we keep things pretty simple. When we talk about hooking up (of course we talk about hooking up. The best part about hooking up is telling your friends the next day!) the questions are short and sweet. Did she have big tits? Did she suck your dick? Was she good at sucking dick? Is she good in bed? Does she talk dirty? Is she freaky? Does she have any freaky friends? All the questions are basically yes/no. I've walked in on female conversation about hooking up and its like I was at the CIA or something. They've got graphs and elaborate diagrams describing the sexual positions and comparative statistics. It's unreal! Men do not compare women to other women.....well not in public anyway. Women have records of experience to compare all their conquests too. And the detail in which these conversations occur is just disturbing. They go over circumference of the penis, which way it hangs, stroke-by-stroke reenactments of intercourse, lapping style for cunnilingus, even the taste and texture of semen. Whoa!! I mean.....c'mon ladies. Its called intimacy for a reason.


Well that is enough for part I. Next time I'll try to dissect more behaviors and start coming to actually behaviors that women may want. Sometimes I think that women are looking for John Holmes (he was a 1970s porn star for those who do not know), with Bill Gates bank account. But is that true? Are women so self-absorbed that their only concerns are the ever-elusive female orgasm and financial security? I hope that not all women are that material. I hope that love, companionship, and commonality can transcend the plethora of differences between men and women. I hope.

Review: A History of Violence


Its been a while and I figured it would be easier to start off with something that is personal to me, yet allows me to be objective in my dissection of its content. I saw the film A History of Violence a week ago. I had been under a heavy bombardment of hype, describing it as a combination of film noir and spaghetti western. The film hails from director David Cronenberg who has warped the psyche of his viewers with films like The Fly, Crash, Existenz, and Scanners decided to bring things full circle and deal with a simple concept which is the dissolution of the small-town hero. The story starts out with two criminals in the midst of a killing spree. They waste whatever person lies in their path. One aspect that I did like about the beginning is that the criminals do not seem to take satisfaction in their homicidal tendencies. They kill for survival, not for pleasure. Some films have a tendency to glamorize death and killers. Like they have an invisible moral shield that hides them from the repercussions of their actions. Cronenberg reintroduces consequence and a semblance of mortality to the killers.
The film then shifts to introduces Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) who seems to be the epitome of the "nice guy". The film shows Tom at home and then with his lovely wife Edie (Maria Bello). Their relationship is pristine. They have two well-behaved kids and a nice home. But the two men from the beginning of the film come to Tom's diner and threaten the town. To the customer's surprise and the rest of the town, Tom breaks into action and easily and brutally dispenses of the two criminals. The thing that I personally didn't like about the metamorphosis of Tom is that it happened too quickly. The same flaw is evident in action films like The Rock, where a total passive character (i.e. Nicholas Cage's huber nerdy nuclear scientist character) and becomes G.I. Joe in the matter of one scene. There should be a sense of cohesion, or at least enough development throughout the plot that the transition seems valid. Tom's son also goes through a similar transition. He is having problems at school with a bully. The major problem I had with the villain is that he looked like a J. Crew cover boy. Pretty boys are NOT badasses! His hair was even styled. What the shit is that? Needless to say, the son soon shifts his personality and deals with his bully in a totally unrealistic and almost insulting fashion.
The highlight of the film was Ed Harris. He stars as a mafia boss from Philadelphia who claims Tom is actually a former hitman named Joey Cusack. Ed Harris is the only pseudo menacing character in the film, mostly due to his scarred eye. Tom is reluctant to admit the truth to his family and himself. Of course there is a confrontation when Tom revisits his past and it wraps up VERY conveniently.
The major problem with the story is that thematically the story does not come to fuition. The major questions, what is the essence of violence, what effect does violence have on the morality of a man, and is it possible to repent for a history of violence, are never answered. The running time for the movie is about 1 hour and 40 minutes.
The next major problem is that casting. Viggo Mortensen just is not that intimidating. Maybe he wasn't supposed to be because he was supposed to convey the "everyman" but when it comes time for him to be brutal it just off as clumsy. I don't think he could kick my ass and I found it problematic to have such an individual portray such a character.
The next problem are the sex scenes. There are two sex scenes, one sentimental and the other pretty.........pornographic. Both scenes are between Tom and his wife. The first is the couples attempt to recapture their youth by having a little role play. Tom's wife puts on a nice little cheerleader uniform and some hanky panky ensues. The next sex scene is much more intense. It is in the middle of a fight and it occurs on the stairs of the couple's house. The passion is still evident but it is warped in such a way that it almost uncomfortable to watch. The sex scene is supposed to function to display a transition from Tom to Joey but it is just.......vulgar and really excessive.
The film was not that bad, but the hype definitely did not benefit it. If anyone out there is looking about a tale of violence and redemption check out Clint Eastwood's masterpiece Unfogiven, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, or Once Upon a Time in the West. This faux spaghetti western is on the verge of greatness but it gets muddled in its own message and becomes lost.