And brunettes. And all women who're neither. And that’s true not just of gentlemen, but all men. So claim women.
‘Why do men two-time?’ must surely rank as one of the most perplexing issues to ever stare (wo)mankind in the face, close to ‘Is There Life Beyond My Misery’ if not others such as ‘Are We Alone In The Universe’ or ‘Is There A God (to punish the bastards)’.
Sure, this debate makes headlines and cocktail-conversation at times when Tigers lose the woods for the babes, but it’s a topic which I suspect rarely leaves the individual or collective consciousness of the fairer sex, even when asleep.
Implicit in this accusation, of course, are a number of assumptions that my chauvinistic rational male mind refuses to accept. Chief of which is the one-man-one-woman paradigm that we’ve been conditioned to live with, thanks largely to the Church. When elementary science books describe as perfectly normal the behaviour of all male species, however evolved genetically, to seek out and mate with multiple females in order to reproduce, emphasize power, demarcate territory or simply show strength, how can we fight nature? Similarly, any cursory reading of history will reveal that across civilisations, humans have not been essentially monogamous. Hell, even today, Islam, the world’s second largest faith and growing, provides men with an option of taking multiple wives, and we’re all aware of numerous tribes that encourage sleeping around before, and even after, getting married.
How then, can we equate the term ‘faithful’ with monogamy? And why should we listen to this particular rant of priests, when we barely listen to them otherwise and dismiss them as irrelevant when it comes to issues like homosexuality and contraception?
Another erroneous assumption is that women are somehow less inclined to bed-hop, especially once they’re married (thankfully, even ladies admit that for every Tiger, there are at least ten nubile females who are perfectly willing to throw themselves at him, powered by motivations very similar to those of men, ie lust, power and success). With a unique multi-orgasmic capacity and persistent complaints of how the average man is incapable of satisfying a woman even after years of hard labour, it’d be surprising if women were to find comfort merely in vibrators and not actively seek sex. Though published statistics may not support this, I’m willing to bet that the urge to experiment and philander is as endemic to wives, the only difference being that they are prone to ‘showing off’ their conquests somewhat less than their husbands.
Anyway, does infidelity become real only in bed and backseats of cars, or is it equally valid when indulged in the mind? If you accept that, girls are as guilty as boys, for isn’t it true that they talk about or fantasize as much about being with other men, even when hooked? Or, that they would not give-in to temptations as easily, if they were not scared of societal consequences? Methinks that’s not the case, and that the main reason why more skeletons don’t tumble out of women’s closets is that they’re simply more prudent.
A point that many women offer in defence of being involved with just one man is that it is impossible to be ‘in love’ with more than one person at a time. Now, though I may agree that most beds in today’s tiny flats are not indeed, ‘King-sized’, it is difficult to imagine how it is not feasible to open one’s heart to more than one person. After all, we do shower affections on more than one child at a time, and siblings grow up to be perfectly well-adjusted adults! And are we seriously saying that orgies are a figment of some pornographer’s imagination, or a hallucination that affected ancient sculptors so badly that they fervently started carving such scenes on the walls of temples?
In any case why must a man’s capability of shouldering familial responsibilities be adversely affected just because he spends a pleasurable night, or two, with another woman? Isn’t that as absurd as suggesting that he starts neglecting his wife just because he’s brought home a new Beamer or a handsome Alsatian? Think, if this were the case, would the learned Mullahs allow a devout Muslim more than one wife?
With so much evidence to support it, why can’t women accept the fact that it’s perfectly normal for humans to be attracted to multiple others, and just because a man has sex outside of marriage, he doesn’t become a dog overnight?
Maybe I’m not very perceptive or privy to the latest psychological analysis of female paranoia, but I suspect it’s because secretly, every woman wants that her man prefer no other female than herself. It is simply beyond her to accept that her husband can find someone else more alluring, or succumb to charms other than those involved in making intelligent conversation. In other words, it’s plain jealousy that drives her to build all this hocus-pocus. In actual fact, she knows all about human nature only too well, and it’s the ignominy of knowing that some other specimen of her own species was better than her, if only temporarily, in netting the man who was and should’ve remained under her control.
And it’s under such circumstances that all hell breaks loose, the woman accuses her man of infidelity, calls him and his entire race immoral, and threatens to walk out. Sadly, it’s the man who puts his career on hold, apologises in public and in court, and starts counting all those assets which will soon cease to be his, and generally feels humiliated and utterly sorry for himself.
Whereas in reality, the gentleman in question should pour himself a shot of nice brandy, light up a cigar, straighten his tie, get into his comfortable car, and start looking around for the next available object that he can shower his affections on, and generally behave like the Tiger that he is. Women, after all, will be women, and there’s no reason to spoil a perfectly nice evening with all this humbug now, is there?
Posts
