Friday, November 6, 2009

A Note on Womanizing

So, I describe myself as a womanizer, which is technically accurate (according to Wikipedia, or possibly as a 'rake' though that's a fairly uncommon term in the US). However, there are slightly different definitions and connotations, and I wanted to clarify my position slightly.

A common understanding of 'womanizing' is a man who uses women, possibly abuses women, to fulfill their own sexual urges with no care for their partner/partners. This isn't an accurate definition.

Technically, a womanizer is the male equivalent of a female 'slut', referring to promiscuity and not all that other stuff. It's simply a male who has promiscuous sex and resists being tied down in a standard relationship. Listed as 'womanizers' on wikipedia are Casanova and James Bond. Yes, James Bond.

While I might not have the dashing good looks, the money, or the amazing cars, I do share some characteristics with Bond. I love women, I treat them very well, and whether it's for one night or for a couple of months together, almost all of the women I'm with will remember me with fondness and a warm feeling in their... lower abdomen.

The problem is that I love all women. Nothing makes me happier than meeting new women. And then having sex with them.

So when you see the ex-jock sitting at the corner of the local bar, on the prowl for the night's two-pump-and-dump, don't denigrate the rest of us womanizers by using the same term for him. He might be promiscuous, but does he really fall into the same category as Casanova and James Bond? Loser and asshole where two terms not found in the definition.

Of course, I also describe myself as an asshole, but exploring that definition will be the task of another day.

4 comments:

  1. nicely explained. when you can be counted with the likes of bond and casanova you're interesting and charming, but the ex-jock trolling for pussy is TOTALLY less appealing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Exactly!! You get it! Plus, a suave guy will get more pussy than the ex-jock asshole any day. lol

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes.

    Love is critical. And just because you use that word, doesn't mean it has to be a fully developed relationship that ends in marriage, that is such a fucked up piece of social control by church and state. Or that if it's not that, that you don't feel love.

    Love is freedom, I am starting to find out. It's a painful journey, but a good one.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Love is a good word choice. I love all women, figuratively, and literally as often as possible.

    ReplyDelete