Over the years, I have had a number of my close friends and acquaintances, as well as many of the readers of my books and freelance articles lightheartedly tease me and criticize me that I have a tendency to repeatedly emphasize certain opinions of mine, viewpoints of mine, and certain assertions, concepts, and themes.
Admittedly, next to the high emphasis I place on upfront, straightforward honesty when discussing interpersonal communication skills between the genders, arguably my second or third most repeated theme would be how much I discuss the idea of the "sexually duplicitous woman."
For example, just under eight months ago, I wrote an Examiner.com article entitled, Suzy Favor Hamilton's "double life" is typical of a sexually duplicitous woman. I have a good female friend of mine named Adrienne who claims that I love to talk about "disingenuous" behavior and "duplicitous" behavior. She says that I am in love with the "two 'D' words." Another concept I tend to discuss quite a bit is Dr. Sigmund Freud's "Madonna / Whore Complex," and how this tends to affect how men view women and behave toward women (My article on The Madonna / Whore Complex provoked the second highest amount of feedback from female readers of any Examiner.com article I have ever written).
1) Freud's "Madonna / Whore Complex" suggests that the vast majority of (heterosexual) men tend to view all women in two general categories: a) "prudish good girls" who are the type of women who ideally want to wait until marriage before they have sex for the first time with a man, and also women who tend to possess many of the same desirable qualities and attributes as that man's own mother, and b) women who are extremely kinky and/or highly promiscuous, which are the women who most men only want to "fool around with" in a number of short-term, non-monogamous 'casual' episodes of sex.
Freud went on to say that when a man suffers from the Madonna / Whore Complex, he is going to end up marrying a woman from category "a," but more than likely, he is going to have one or more extramarital affairs with women from category "b."
2) In a nutshell, a 'sexually duplicitous' woman would be a woman who privately operates in category "b," but publicly wants to maintain the image and social reputation of a woman from category "a."
In 2009, I got hired at IU Northwest University in Gary, Indiana to teach a six-week adult education course entitled, Dating for 21st Century Singles. During that course, I told my students that the main factor that forever changed the manner in which men and women interact with each other in today's dating scene was when more and more women started becoming very comfortable engaging in sexual relations outside the context of marriage, and even more so, outside the context of a long-term, emotionally profound, monogamous "boyfriend-girlfriend" relationship.
I am sure you have heard many actors and actresses in various movies use the dramatic line of dialogue, "there is no going back now" (or some line very similar to that). Well, that melodramatic line applies to 21st Century dating. There is no "going back."
For example, I just recently had a conversation with a woman who, once she found out that I wrote books and articles related to dating and relationships, said to me, "Why don't you write an article on 'why did men stop courting and romancing women.' I would love to read your opinions on that!"
For starters, I do not believe that ALL men have stopped "courting" and "romancing" women, but I would agree that a good number of them have. Why? Again, because of the sexually duplicitous woman.
You see, in my parents' generation, the only "guaranteed" way for a man to have a steady, dependable sex partner was to get married. In the early to middle part of the 20th Century, and before, very few women were willing to have sex prior to marriage. The idea of having a child out of wedlock was considered a huge embarrassment for most families in society.
Without getting too lengthy or academic, the first factor that started to change things was when various forms of birth control were beginning to be developed and marketed to the general public. The second major factor was when what is known as the "sexual revolution" and "free love movement" of the 1960s and 1970s became hugely popular nationwide. By no later than the early-to-mid1980s, it was no longer considered "shameful" to engage in premarital sex, casual sex, or have a child out of wedlock.
In today's society, women very proudly wear the tag of "Baby Mama." Most of my mother and grandmother's female peers would have shot themselves in the head before being referred to as a "Baby Mama." What a difference a century makes.
For example, let's say it was 1963, and I put a man in a room with ten women. Five of the women are dressed like a religious and conservative Sunday school teacher, while the other five are dressed like street prostitutes and professional Call Girls. Fifty years ago, it would be fairly easy for that man to say, "Okay ... the five women who are dressed 'conservatively' are the erotically conservative 'good girls,' and the five who are dressed more provocatively are the 'kinky and promiscuous' women."
Today, those stereotypes-based-on-clothing would be highly invalid. I have met women who frequently dressed like "Sunday School teachers" or "librarians," and even generally behaved like "semi-prudes" in public, who later on revealed to me privately that they were as kinky as any adult film actress working in the porn industry. Not all of the 'kinky' women I have been with have had a history of promiscuity, but a percentage of them did.
Which brings me to Thicke's "Blurred Lines." This song is really a mantra for the sexually duplicitous woman (or, at minimum, a mantra for how most men view today's sexually liberated woman). I feel where he is coming from with most of his lyrics. Of course, many women have stated publicly that they think the song and video are "misogynistic" and even "disrespectful and degrading" to women, but I do not view the song as any of the above.
My perception of the song - and I could be wrong, since I am not personally acquainted with Mr. Thicke and have yet to converse with him about his hit tune - is that he is, in his own way, saying with his lyrics, "You are presenting yourself to me as the proverbial 'good girl' ... but underneath that facade, we both know that you have an adventurous side ... a more free-spirited side ... a nymphomaniac side ... and most importantly, a kinky side. We both know that, don't we? You have two sexual personalities ... and the lines between the two are very blurred."
99% of the time that I approach women, that is my underlying attitude toward them. My thought process tends to be, "I know you're going to try to give me the impression that you are this innocent, wholesome, semi-prudish 'good girl' ... but we both know, that you have an inner 'kinky freak' side to your personality."
Check out these lyrics from Robin Thicke's Blurred Lines:
OK now he was close, tried to domesticate you
But you're an animal, baby, it's in your nature
Just let me liberate you
Hey, hey, hey
You don't need no papers
Hey, hey, hey
That man is not your maker
And to respond to that woman's question about "Why aren't men motivated to 'court' and 'romance' women," this is the reason why. Most men I have been friends with over the years have very little desire to 'wine and dine' women, be sexually patient with women, and treat women 'too special too quickly' if they think that there is a greater than fifty percent chance that this particular woman has engaged in frequent episodes of wild sex (such as taking part in a sexual orgy with half of her dormitory while in college). Women will read this and say, "Men with those type of attitudes are so judgmental," but most of the men reading this will say, "Alan is keeping it real. That is how many men really think."
In the early to middle part of the 20th Century, a man was motivated to 'court' a woman because he was basically 'selling' that woman on the idea of accepting a 'career' as his housewife. Personal chef + nanny + maid + dependable sex partner + permanent date and escort for social functions + cheerleader to his dreams and career goals = Highly sought after housewife.
In today's society, most women have their own careers and their own money. They rarely cook and rarely clean up behind any man. At least half of the women in society now promote themselves as "successful and independent." And on top of all that, many of them have no inhibitions about engaging in a one-night stand, weekend fling, "Friends-with-Benefits" relationship, or some other form of polyamorous sex with the men of their choosing.
My bottom line point is that when you combine the high prevalence of sexually duplicitous women in society with the fact that most single heterosexual men suffer from the effects of the Madonna / Whore Complex to one degree or another, the resulting consequence is that many men have become very 'wary' of women who portray themselves in public as "good girls." For the most part, many men in today's dating scene think the days of the true genuine "good girl" are long gone for good. I have a screenwriter friend named Tim Alexander who all but says that almost every week on his Facebook statuses.
One of the most memorable comedy lines from Dave Chappelle was when he said, "Chivalry is dead . . . and women killed it." I would not go as far as to say that women totally "killed" men's desire to 'woo' and 'court' women, but I will say because of the blurred lines between the two sexual personalities of a sexually duplicitous woman, men's motivation to treat every woman they meet like "wifey" material has diminished significantly.
So to all of the hardcore feminist types, who insist on creating an unnecessary "controversy" about Thicke's hit song, I say "chill." There is no real "controversy" about this song whatsoever. Again, Mr. Thicke is just saying to women, "For every ten women who present themselves to us men as 'prudish good girls,' at least seven or eight of those women are putting on an 'act.' A social facade that we can easily see through."
The truth is that women need to generally do one of two things: Either a) quickly acknowledge to men of interest that they are going to have to wait until marriage to experience any type of orgasmic pleasure, or b) quickly acknowledge to men of interest that they are totally down with engaging in a few episodes of premarital sex and/or kinky, non-monogamous casual sex.
If you are on the fence between those two categories - you have one leg in category "a" and one leg in category "b" - then you are guilty of blurring the lines.
I know you want it
I know you want it
I know you want it
But you're a good girl
The way you grab me
Must wanna get nasty
Go ahead, get at me
You know you want it.
Alan Roger Currie is the author of a number of books, including Mode One: Let the Women Know What You're REALLY Thinking and Oooooh . . . Say it Again: Mastering the Fine Art of Verbal Seduction and Aural Sex. Currie's latest eBook, The Possibility of Sex: How Naive and Lustful Men are Manipulated by Women Regularly is also available exclusively on Amazon.com in their Kindle format. You can also download a copy of Currie's eBook on your iPhone, Android Smartphone, or other Smartphone.
Upfront & Straightforward with Alan Roger Currie, the most-listened to talk radio podcast program in the category of "Romance" and self-help for dating singles on the BlogTalkRadio Internet Radio Network, can be heard LIVE every Thursday evening at 10:00pm EST / 7:00pm PST. Visit http://www.blogtalkradio.com/modeone and http://modeone.net for more details
Currie offers email, telephone, and Skype consultations to both men and women; Visit http://modeone.net/products to purchase a consultation