Self-help relationship books

Browsing through the self-help section of a bookshop, I can see dozens of books on relationships and men. Apparently I can learn how to understand the male species well enough to have a fantastic relationship devoid of arguments and controversy. Eminent psychologists are screaming wonderful advice free from the political and cultural restraints of the past. They’ve stripped the male and female psyches down to the fundamental truths: Men and women are completely equal except for some small differences which need to be ironed out for a relationship to work. These differences can be summarized quite succinctly: Men are simple, women are overwhelmingly complicated. Men don’t like commitment. Women do like commitment.

But if all the fundamental relationship advice we require is screaming at us from a book-shelf, why are the as-old-as-time problems still present between men and women. My answer is simple, I don’t need a man-manual, I need a f***ing man-encyclopaedia. Simple they might be, but transparent they are not.

Take for example women’s intuition. If it really does exist, then it probably developed as a tool in understanding a man’s thoughts and actions. A man might be simple, but given their unemotional surface appearance (new-age man excluded), it can be quite difficult to work-out exactly which “simple” feeling or thought they are having. The problem with a woman’s intuition is it stands the other side of a fine line to a woman’s paranoia and ability to over-analyse a situation to the point of collapse. Men and women are simply different and maybe acceptance rather than psychological analysis and game-playing is the key.

Despite the self-help books being free of cultural and political restraints, there are enough women in the world who would appreciate a book with a less-feminist, less-modernistic bend. For example, there are some women in the world who expect their husband to take more than one wife or to take on mistresses. A self-help book will encourage equality and discourage a woman from accepting other wives and mistresses, and yet the peers of these women will encourage them to accept their situation without emotion. There isn’t a middle ground or any advice appropriate for their way of life. In some cases the feminist angle excludes a woman from taking care of her husband domestically. Here we are told a man and a woman are equal and as such, should share all household tasks. I find a problem with this advice since any man will freely admit, they cannot multi-task. A woman can clean, cook, shower, talk with clients and watch television nigh on simultaneously, whereas a man just cannot. An interesting experiment is to watch a man make dinner. He opens all the cupboard doors, takes out all that he needs and doesn’t close them again. Even the task of cooking dinner and doing nothing else, is approached with minimal co-ordinating thought-processes.

Acceptance really does seem to be the key. My rather idealistic nature tells me that love conquers all. Regardless of culture, background, up-bringing, maleness, femaleness, financial status, or imperfections, two people who really love each other should be able to cope with each other’s differences and love unconditionally (within reason). So maybe we should forget about self-help books and publish a leaflet instead, which simply says: Men are different to women, women are different to men. Stop analysing and just f****ing deal with it.

Sowing the wild oats

We’ve all heard the theory that a man has to sow his wild oats before settling down. Throughout history a man’s promiscuity has been treated as more acceptable because men are men and it’s a natural trait they find difficult to suppress. So what’s the truth? Let’s take a look at a couple of my own theories on wild oat sowing in the fields of women.

Theory 1:

A man is naturally more animalistic than a woman and needs to sow his wild oats to satisfy the inner instinct to procreate. I read an article saying various research on married couples who both cheat shows that female cheaters have fewer extra-marital sexual partners than male cheaters. It is proposed this is because both have a natural desire to procreate and are continuously looking for genes to help them produce strong offspring, however since women must carry each baby for 9 months and men are not physically involved for longer than 9 minutes, a woman’s urge to procreate is less frequent.

Theory 2:

Perhaps using instinctive procreation as an excuse for infidelity is mis-guided and what we are in fact looking at is much simpler: Macho Insecurity. Maybe men just need more attention than women do. After all, women generally receive more attention on a day to day basis because of their physical appearance, so to offset this men try to attract more attention through sexual performance.

Theory 3:

Perhaps men have more of an insecure need to prove it all works down there so they keep trying it out. After all a man’s areas are more prone to accident than a woman’s, being more exposed and all, so a constant reassurance could be a requirement we’re just not taking seriously.

Complexity of a woman

I have to ask once again: What’s wrong with us ladies? We’re so f****** complicated we make nuclear physics look as simple as changing a tyre. Let’s take a look at the old age example of a woman’s analysis of alleged (alleged by women) ‘signs’ in a relationship. In our current technological age these ‘signs’ can come in many forms, something the boyfriend says, his body language, the way he writes his emails, the specifics of a four word sms, his choice of presents, his choice of restaurant… the list is endless.

Even though women spend a lot of time looking for signs, men spend very little time purposefully creating them. Unfortunately they are just not that complicated. When a woman asks which dress a man likes and he says either and fails the test miserably, the woman is under a common mythical misconception that the man is on the same complicated wavelength as she is and can surely join the game at such a sophisticated level. The truth is the game of signs and subliminal messages is a one-way game with no winners. If a boyfriend sends his girlfriend an sms asking how her day was without writing ‘baby’ at the beginning as usual, the girlfriend is likely to spend hours obsessing over it. Does he still love me? Maybe he’s bored of me? Maybe this is his way of breaking up with me? Often the simple fact comes to light that the boyfriend was watching the football and took a moment’s concentration away from the football to ask how his girlfriend’s day was because he cares so much, but didn’t put a lot of effort into the message. Fair enough. The girlfriend then realises that her neurosis was needless, screamed insecurity like a police siren and totally embarrassed her cool, collective sexy persona she was previously so proud of. I’m guilty of sms analysis and the dress question amongst others. Maybe we need to pull ourselves together girls!!

Is civilization going backwards with regard to the sexes?

In times gone by there were certain rules and behavioural expectations pertaining to relationships that barely exist in the Western world today. In the days of Jane Austen a gentleman would arrive at the house of a young lady on horseback and politely request her company for a walk in the garden. These days an sms saying “Hey, u fancy a drink Friday?” is a much more common expectation. Up until about 50 years ago it was routine for a young man to ask for his future bride’s hand in marriage via her father. These days, girls don’t listen to their fathers advice as much as before, so a father normally contests with little success or agrees to the marriage already decided by the young couple.

It seems that in our quest for freedom and the complete and total right of the individual we have given up certain formalities and advisory systems that could in fact be helpful. The quest for our personal rights has created an arrogance that as individuals we are in fact secure enough in ourselves and experienced enough in the ways of the world to form opinions which are much better for us than that which could be suggested by someone older and wiser.

I’m not suggesting a retreat to the 1800s where freedom was particularly lacking for a young lady wishing to get into the dating game. However what I am suggesting is that if women made themselves less available men would have to ride that damn horse to win their heart. This would weed out the idiots for a start. After that, losing the arrogance and considering advice from fathers, uncles, wiser men etc…, would weed out the crazy guys and dating would be a lot less hit and miss.

Self-deluded ugly men

Here is a picture for you: Unattractive, old, huge, sweating, dull man chats up and expects date from young, pretty girl. This is a recurrent theme I have seen many a time. Don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with older men chatting up younger women or unattractive men chatting up pretty women. We all have our qualities that cannot be predetermined at face-value. However there are extreme situations and what makes them more extreme is the audacity with which the man desperately and unrelentingly propositions the lady.

These are key situations I have observed where the above occurs:

You’re in a restaurant dining alone and reading a book, a man approaches and asks how you are. You say you are fine and continue with your book. He then asks if he can join you. You say no as you want to spend some time alone and relax. He then sits down anyway and asks questions constantly whilst you try to concentrate on eating and reading.

You have a dull, male acquaintance who sends you ‘happy’ emails everyday, offers incessant flattery, always agrees with you and insists on taking you for dinner all the time.

You are stood in a bar and someone stands uncomfortably close, tries to make conversation but has no social skills (hence why they are standing uncomfortably close), starts sending you ring tones by Bluetooth and due to lack of social skills sends about fifteen and thinks that it’s normal!

Someone approaches you in a queue at a shop and makes conversation. You make conversation back. They then say you can stay with them any time and ask for your phone number. The alarm bells ring since asking for a number isn’t strange but mentioning you can stay with them after a 20 second conversation is. They then start to ask a lot of questions about your male relatives. The bells are ringing and ringing loud! You then mention that you have no phone, no email and are a travelling nomad with no fixed address, all your brothers are older, are waiting outside the shop and you think it’s just so funny how you’re so short but your brothers are so large!

So what is the verdict? Do these men look in the mirror... ever or listen to themselves speak? Are they simply delusional? Or maybe they have managed to convince a few highly insecure females to go out with them through constant flattery and desperate behaviour and this has in turn caused them to have higher expectations?

Is love just an addiction?

There are a whole variety of addictions, which can be brought on due to psychological or physiological reasons. Could it be possible that when we think we’re ‘in love,’ we are in fact addicted to someone? For example, maybe we form an addiction through psychological insecurities. Or perhaps we form an addiction based on the physical attributes of the relationship. If this is the case then maybe it is perfectly curable over a period of time. We just need to admit we have a problem (the first step to recovery) and then begin to fall out of love through careful, planned withdrawal.

Inherent insecurities and life-long partners: The link

Perhaps, no matter how confident in ourselves and our beliefs and opinions we think we are, there is always an underlying layer of insecurity nibbling away at us. This may cause us to constantly seek reassurance through searching for and staying with that one person who shares the same beliefs and opinions and identifies with us.