The topic is infidelity and what came to my mind is a discussion in the book about "mate poaching," which is pretty much what it sounds like: trying to pinch someone else's partner, as one writer puts it. But what I discovered when I turned to that chapter surprised me; it was something I didn't notice when I first read it.
I came to realize Buss is not exactly an innocent bystander in the scenario described in the opening of the chapter, "Mate Poachers." Now, let me start with a disclaimer: What Buss is talking about is important and my observation here does not diminish this in the least. It merely points out how his actions influenced and set up a scene that helped him make his point.
Buss tells the story of a party he attended, a light-hearted social gathering of friends and family who had come together "for a long weekend of eating, drinking, talking, hugging, and having an all-around good time." Well, one of the guests at one point said to Buss that he's "got to do something" about another guest who he had witnessed hugging his wife. Buss asked him to clarify what he meant, and the man replied: "I feel like taking a screwdriver and ramming it into his neck."
Apparently, Buss decided to spread word throughout the gathering of this man's supposedly homicidal intent! I wondered, why didn't he question the guy further, find out exactly why he felt threatened by what appeared to be a congenial and innocent hug. Maybe there was some history here that Buss didn't know about. Whether the man had a right or reason to be angry is sort of beside the point, as I see it. His wife may or may not have "strayed" in the past, or had a tendency to behave "inappropriately" with other men. (I put these words in quotes because they are subject to individual interpretation.) My point here is that if Buss had delved into this a little more with the man instead of leaping to the conclusion that he might actually commit a violent act toward a man he (apparently) suspected of potential mate poaching, he most certainly would have avoided creating an atmosphere in the party of "homicidal hyperalert."
Nobody at the party had to know what words the man used to describe his anger. Buss was the one who chose to repeat them; he is the one guilty of spreading the rumor, or of gossiping about an alleged intent that he really knew nothing about. The angry man's first words to Buss had been about his need to "do something" about a situation in which he felt threatened. The fact that he felt like committing a violent act probably was nothing more than just that, a feeling that arose in the context of an angry moment. Buss describes the man as "peaceful" and as one who had "never before shown any signs of violence."
So, why did he choose to say something slanderous about the man, even if he was repeating the exact words the man used? I'd say it's because it served his narcissistic purpose of gathering juicy material for his book. If he had merely talked the man into a state of calm and found out more information about why he felt so threatened, Buss could instead have helped rather than hurt the man, as he did by repeating words that caused "everyone" at the party to look with suspicion upon him, a man who might have only been afraid, nothing more or less. Buss claims that everyone "made sure that their bedroom doors were locked tight that night."
Oh, sure. They were really afraid of a man going off on a raging homicidal spree? More realistically, they had been influenced by another man (Buss) intent on creating a scene that furthered his own agenda.
One thing I found interesting in this whole description is how Buss described the man who had hugged the woman as a "friend," and yet the other man, the one who had confided in Buss about his anger, was not described as a friend. Was that the difference between the two men, as far as Buss was concerned, that one man is a friend and other a mere acquaintance?
In any case, here is the opening sentence of that chapter: "One of the most terrifying displays of homicidal psychology I've personally witnessed happened at a friend's home." Yet Buss was hardly just an innocent bystander watching the horror of it all unfold.
But back to the topic of infidelity, another item came to my attention: an article shared by another blogstress, Elizabeth, in Steve's blog as part of that conversation I mentioned earlier. "What Do Women Want? - Discovering What Ignites Female Desire," published on January 22nd in the New York Times Magazine, is very much related to this whole issue and yet opens up quite a few more topics, so I will leave it alone for now and see if this generates any comments.
Mainly, I was thinking about the idea brought out in the article that women's sexual desire is narcissistic.
.jpg)
7 comments:
Yes, Jen, that's also the part that stuck with me the most. That's one of the "surprises" I meant in my SHAMblog comment. :)
It sounds bad, no? for our sexual desires to be "narcissistic," and yet I cannot argue with that, because I agree, in a large measure, if not totally. I would probably not use the word "narcissistic" to describe this aspect of female sexuality, but I agree with the nature of the phenomenon itself as described in the article.
As to Buss, ha! You nailed him (and it, the dynamics of the situation) here. What a cad. BTW, I had that very same impression (a pompous cad) after reading his earlier book on sexuality, "The Evolution of Desire."
We like happy surprises, but the sad reality is that some of the more important life lessons revolve around the less-than-happy ones. Like facing our own narcissism. It ain't pretty!
But the fact is, we each have an ego and it sometimes behaves like an unruly child. I keep remembering our new president's words at his inauguration, how it is now time to set aside childish things. He is correct. Was just thinking about his response to recipients of the so-called "bail outs," how some of these banking execs may have used taxpayer money to help themselves first, with generous bonuses.
Interesting to hear your perspective on Buss. I enjoyed his book very much and am intrigued by the idea of mate poaching, wondering whether it actually explains or at least sheds light on the reasons behind some of the philandering and such that goes on. I was reading this morning at the Guardian website (I linked to an article there in my blog post), where Dr. Luisa Dillner, the retiring "Love By Numbers" columnist, talks about the letters she has received about sex. This is in a different article in which she says farewell, not the one I cited.
One of the key points I appreciate her saying is how to have a happy relationship: "Say five positive things to every one negative thing, and do not be critical or abusive when you argue (or drag in stuff from two years ago). And have a laugh together."
Back to the article about mate poaching, she talks about "short-term" poaching, which she says is typically a male behavior, and says a woman who has been poached for a short time is like someone on loan, or borrowed goods.
All of this brings up the idea of monogamy and how well it is actually working out for us, individually and collectively. Any thoughts about that?
Good advice from Dillner, Jen; it's hard to argue with it.
As to monogamy -- that is a conundrum at least when it comes to sex, where novelty is exciting and stimulating, and boredom, inevitable in a long-term relationship (no matter what one's efforts at spicing things us may be) is a killer. Of course there are positive aspects of a long-term relationship, likely outweighing its negatives, but when it comes to sex (IMO), monogamy does not serve us all that well. And yet... (Here I could come up with another line of arguments in support of monogamy as it relates to sex -- I can outargue myself at times, LOL -- but this just shows how conflicted I am on the issue (actually more so as I'm getting older, to my own surprise, I must admit).
You're right that facing one's narcissism is never fun. Luckily, I never have this problem! ;) (Tongue firmly in cheek here.)
Re: Buss -- I have a generalized issue with the evolutionary psychology and its deterministic (yes) take on the human nature. Not to mention the relationships between the sexes. There are good points in evol-psych, to be sure, but the overall gist of this discipline is hard for me to stomach. A lot of it is, IMO, biased thinking that serves to perpetuate the status quo rather than accurately account for human reality. But that's JMO, you know.
Elizabeth, I hear you. Not one of us is an "innocent bystander" in the realm of sex, which is perhaps one of the biggest conundrums ever.
And I definitely see your points about evolutionary psychology. Theories are just theories, and none of them stand alone as "ultimate" truth, regardless of the value found within them.
As always, JMO. ;)
Thank you for commenting here!
P.S. A joke:
I had lunch with 2 of my unmarried friends. One is engaged, one is a mistress, and of course I have been married for 20+ years.
We were chatting about our relationships and decided to amaze our men by wearing a black leather bra, stiletto heels and a mask over our eyes. We agreed to meet in a few days to exchange notes.
Here's how it all went.
My engaged friend: The other night when my boyfriend came over he found me with a black leather bodice, tall stilettos and a mask. He saw me and said, 'You are the woman of my dreams. I love you.' Then we made love all night long.
The mistress: Me too! The other night I met my lover at his office and I was wearing the leather bodice, heels and mask over my eyes and a raincoat. When I opened the raincoat he didn't say a word, but we had wild sex all night.
Then I had to share my story: When my husband came home I was wearing the leather bodice, black stockings, stilettos and a mask over my eyes. As soon as he came in the door and saw me he said, 'What's for dinner, Batman?'
Ha ha ha! A good one, Jen.
P.S. The husband's second question was, How much did all that cost??
Post a Comment