Emotional Unavailability and the Text Message

I love this quote from Jean-Pierre in Montreal, the writer of www.lazingarina.blogspot.com in a comment she made on 'Missing Buenos Aires (or Not)

  'If you're lucky, the guy will do something stupid and sleazy right away so you know to move on. If you're not, he waits till after the getting to know you period, when you two are already involved. That's when its especially painful.'

Men seem to do this a great deal, the hooking you in emotionally and then running away. We tend to call it fear, commitmentphobia or emotional unavailabliity, when the reality could be that they are stoking up their egos. It comes back to the concept of 'Bad Choices'. J-P resents the fact that the choice seems to come down to women as though we are somehow the 'Moral Guardians' of choices and men are allowed to simply be irresponsible but this is not something new and is driven by biology. The irresponsibility we see now in 'Emotional Unavailability' comes from too many choices for men and this is entirely our own fault in how we have handled the Women's Liberation Movement.

The sisters who fought through the sixties (and before) for the sexual revolution are probably horrified at the outcome in young women today. Women now want to enjoy a 'quick shag' that cannot possibly be fulfilling for the numbers that claim it. (Women's biology is simply not created equal to a man's). So now, rather than holding more power in our sexual choices, we have meekly handed the power back to men. With the pill and easy sex, they don't have to get married or pretend to be in a relationship to get sex - they simply text you for it. And in our own backlash against the liberation movement, we not only go along with it, we take it to the extreme. There would not be porn everywhere you look if we did not encourage it.

After my relationship with the BD, I will never again allow text 'romance' - it is simply an excuse to remain distant while demanding what you want - sex and emotional commitment. It's like the cabaceo in tango - I won't do it - If you haven't got the balls to come and ask me for a dance/shag then go elsewhere.

The choice is ours - IF we have the strength to make it. Women as usual, are in competition with each other - now it's not who can catch the most eligible husband, but who can be the biggest slapper. Men won't change until WE make them.

Comments

[Arlene]

@ Suzy
Mountaineering/trekking is very cool. You are right about doing things only because you love to. I have met a lot of amazing people from my hobbies, the best being women. Women as friends is underrated in many instances and I treasure mine.
Also, trust your instincts. You know within 5 minutes if the guy is going to be good or not or just a fling, etc.

@ J-P
Your last paragraph is spot on. People should be with each other because they want to not because they need to or have hidden agendas. If we swapped the words men/women to people instead then maybe more people would try and take more responsibility for their choices.

I may have made a bad choice, but I 'knew' deep inside that something wasn't 100%. I didn't trust myself and that was the worst thing. I do now.

So, a lot of Argentine men treat women shabbily. The day the woman figures it out and still stays, then she shouldn't complain. Shit or get off the pot as they say in the US.

[suzy vegas]

What an interesting post Arlene thank you.
It is always my opinion that the best way to meet a man is by doing something you love - scuba is obviously a good one - mine is mountaineering/trekking.

I agree about the dancing men - there is a theory that they only go to pick up women - They do in Buenos Aires that's for sure

[Arlene]

Interesting post and good points on the comments. I don't think the issue here is the amount of sex people are having, just the way they are having it. Casual sex is not good for women's self esteem no matter how liberated they are. There is a price to pay eventually. Having come out of a bad relationship 5 years ago, I forego relationships (sex) for two years after while I got my life together. Then I dated (had some sex). Realised when things weren't right for me and stopped dating (no sex)In the 2 year period of dating, the amount of sex had was actually minimal as there were huge gaps in my dating. I danced a lot of Tango, Ceroc and Salsa. Eventually, I decided to hold out until I met the right person. Sounds like a cliche, but I couldn't even be bothered to meet anyone for coffee. I could just tell that it wouldn't be right. I also limited myself: no Tango men (I live in London), no English men, no men from work or the gym....After another year and a half of self imposed celibacy(I decided it was better to be alone than settle) I met someone. This year. . Well, someone I had met 3 years before on a scuba holiday. I 'knew' when I saw him again and things are great. Oh, and he's English!
Suzy is right about no sex if you are married and since mariage hasn't been one of my strong points I have no intention of going back down that road or living with anyone again.
We need to be in an equal partnership and not settle or become co-dependent on our partners. It might also be a good idea to take up another hobby other than dancing as I feel it brings out the worst in men.

[suzy vegas]

I totally agree with you Jean-Pierre about the women's movement I just think we have betrayed the early women by waving the white flag too soon.
I must know many more 'busier' people than you and the statistics or maybe it is simply the men in Argentina who are out for much more sex than average.

And we know that married people have almost NO sex. I agree about not catering to a man which is what bothers me about all the 'Emotional Unavailability' gurus - It's all about the woman adjusting who she is or acting some role when it is the men that need to change (Of their own volition ms Holly) and get with the programme - i/e a partnership is that - not one partner mangling themselves in the hope the other will stick around

[Jean-Pierre]

Thanks for the compliment on my comment :-)

I'm not sure I entirely agree with your assessment of the women's movement... while I think that they didn't really address sexuality successfully, they did tremendous work in making the quality of our lives better, and winning us rights and freedoms that we now take for granted. In the 60s, for example, a single women couldn't have her own credit card, or buy her own house, and education and careers were limited.

I also have a theory, that is backed up by statistics, that people don't have as much sex as the media would have you believe. Statistically, single people rarely have sex. A handful of casual hook-ups a year do not amount to a satisfying sex life.

I do not believe that single young women are out shagging all the time. Or young men for that matter, either. I think, due to media exaggeration; everyone believes that they are, but they aren't. Again, research shows, from following the path of an std, that most people have few partners. There was usually only one exception that was out banging dozens of people, and he/she was responsible for the spread of the disease.

So I think when I say that men need to be responsible for their actions; i mean that women should stop blaming themselves for some cretin's behaviour.

Also, I don't think we should use power, or any sort of means to get men to act decent, I think we should simply choose not to engage with men who do not have their own, intrinsic ethics. I don't want to engage in a new kind of game; I don't want a man to be with me only because I'm a wifely pez dispenser of sex; I want a man to be with me because of ME. And um, i'd kinda have to want to be with him too ;-).

[Zool]

"So now, rather than holding more power in our sexual choices, we have meekly handed the power back to men. With the pill and easy sex, they don't have to get married or pretend to be in a relationship to get sex - they simply text you for it" - this is the centerpoint as I see it too.

[Joli]

Men do not change unless they want to change. Never think otherwise.