I Want to be Kissed by a Scoundrel
I am told Han Solo is problematic.
Some authors even go so far as to blame Han for male confusion regarding sex assault.
Since day one, my fear regarding the #metoo movement is that it will devolve into strictures not on male sexuality but on female. I worry that in the name of protecting women from sexual violence, women’s ability to embrace their sexuality as it IS, not as others think it should be, will be diminished and controlled. I’ve already seen several social media proclamations about what women always like or never like from people who seem otherwise fully reasonable in matters of sexuality and feminism. Some male feminist allies claim that because (other) men are animals women need to be constantly shielded (by said male allies) from (other) men’s gross and sweaty aggression because women are sexless bastions of purity and are helpless, passive victims who have no ability to defend themselves in the demanding presence of peniskind. Women shouldn’t even have to think about penises because their brains are too dainty.
The implication is that this shielding process needs to occur BEFORE the fact; that women should never have to endure any act, no matter how brief, no matter how G-rated, that they didn’t strictly initiate because they lack the wherewithal to do so without being forever ruined by the encounter. Fielding the occasional unwanted romantic overture will surely break the exquisite, inscrutable Faberge eggs that are female minds and thus women need to be kept under the control (thumbs) of the good men who would never do such a thing. It all feels very weird and backwards and Victorian to me. This concept that women are born victims who need to be constantly protected from sex, never allowed to get into situations that are too challenging for them to handle because they don’t have the strength or the skills – it rubs me the wrong way.
And entirely without my consent!
Applying this logic to the Han Situation, as a decent, righteous man, Luke should have ensured that Leia was bundled offworld into the care of robot nuns who would have protected her virtue and made sure that her lips remained unsullied by smuggler saliva. Right? She would have rather kissed a Wookie, she said as much! And as for what Leia may have secretly wanted but not clearly stated, well, her safety simply had to come first.
The fact of the matter is, I want to be kissed by a scoundrel. I pretty much have my whole life, starting with when I was 10 years old and sitting in a dark movie theater – a very protected child, mind you, who had not yet internalized any misogyny (that came later). I don’t know what chemical cascade happened in my heart and mind but Han kissing Leia was the single greatest thing I had ever seen. Even though I didn’t know why I knew, I knew that somehow, someday, that was gonna happen to me. I hoped so anyway. The first available scoundrel I came across was going to kiss me. I wasn’t going to kiss him, oh no, because that wasn’t how things were supposed to work. I would entice him with my princess-ish charms like spaceship repair, blaster accuracy, and exotic hairstyling, and he would kiss me, and I would like it a super lot.
So these dudes suddenly coming out of the woodwork to explain how creeptasticaly problematic the Han-Leia relationship is feels an awful like people mansplaining my own sexuality to me. Remember mansplaining? It’s bad. Don’t do it. Because I am telling you as a woman that Han kissing Leia was not creepy, it was perfect and wonderful and even now I still think that with every fiber of my being even though I know that I am supposed to think otherwise and that I should not be admitting this terrible humiliating secret to my closest friends, let alone writing a thinkpiece on it that might actually be read by somebody someday.
But, but, but he didn’t have her permission, they were on a spaceship in the middle of nowhere, blah blah blah, yeah I read that first article. Look, we saw about 15 minutes of the entire Leia-Han relationship, ok? We don’t have a clue what transpired between them after the Death Star blew up, what happened at the afterparty the night Leia gave Han and Luke their medals, what happened for months on end on Yavin and on Hoth and on transport ships in between. We didn’t see how Han may have comforted Leia when she was feeling low about Alderaan’s destruction, we didn’t see how many times they chatted and flirted and laughed together and all the subtle non-verbal communication going on between them that Han picked up on and we didn’t because we are imaginationless idiots writing thinkpieces for Mic magazine.
Leia did not feel threatened or in danger from Han. NOTHING in her demeanor at any point in time in any of the movies indicates that she was scared of Han, like in a rapey way. She seemed perfectly comfortable with him. She argued with him, insulted him, bossed him around, treated him like an inept servant. From the moment they met she was busting his chops. She called him a scruffy nerf herder, for Porg’s sake. Later on she risked her life and her freedom to save him. Han and Leia always had a relationship of equals – maybe not even equals, really, since she was a princess and he was a lowly smuggler. He was kind of her employee, her underling, her minion, even. She had a lot more power than he did, really, in pretty much every way.
Cue the “Leia was actually sexually harassing Han” bit in 3, 2, 1…
Ok, so right before they kissed she was nervous. Scared, even. That is true. Brave, strong Leia was scared. But she wasn’t scared of HAN, duh, gawd, I cannot believe I have to explain this. It is glaringly obvious to me anyway that it was because she was having some pretty intense feelz that she didn’t think she ought to be having. Feelz can be scary. And she knew it too, that’s why she was so prickly and defensive every time Han got close to her. It wasn’t because she didn’t like him, it wasn’t because she thought he was a rapey bastard, it was because she liked him too much and that was a scary experience for her. And Han knew it too, he saw right through the charade. It wasn’t because he was a predator that got his jollies off of forcing women to do stuff against their will, it was because Leia was putting on an act and he understood that. If Leia hadn’t actually liked Han, Han wouldn’t have made moves on her. He didn’t make any moves on Mon Mothma, did he? No, he saved his scoundrel-y moves for the chick who he had (rightfully) perceived was into it.
But why was he so damn pushy? Why didn’t he accept what Leia was saying at face value? Well, obviously, because he was getting other messages from Leia that occurred in the many, many weeks, months and possibly even years between the events of Star Wars and the events of The Empire Strikes Back. Just like how, oh, I don’t know, two adult humans in the actual world are probably sending all kinds of signals to each other that they both might detect and act upon without anyone stopping to blink and awkwardly clear their throats before drily stammering “By the by, I am finding myself interested in pursuing a sexual relationship with you, are you in any way interested in that possibility, no hard feelings if you aren’t, just tossing it out there for your consideration.”
Han realized that the reason why Leia didn’t think she ought to be having those feelz is because Leia (like virtually all women both fictional and real) was socialized to follow a certain set of respectability rules drummed into her bunned head starting when she was in her cradle back on Alderaan being rocked to sleep by robot nannies. Leia (like virtually all women both fictional and real) had been socialized since Padme birthed her to sometimes follow society’s rules even when it wasn’t in her best interests to do so. Han further realized that Leia’s internalized rules did not involve getting it on with a sketchy, morally ambiguous smuggler very far beneath her in social status while a war was going on and both of them could die at any minute and an ill-fated romance could cause all kinds of trouble and heartache for everyone.
It doesn’t mean she didn’t want to, it didn’t mean that it wasn’t the best thing in the galaxy far, far away for her to do. And it for sure doesn’t mean she was getting rape-kissed. It simply means that Han picked up on some messages she was sending via other modes of communication that were louder than what she was saying verbally. It wasn’t that he wasn’t listening to her, it was that he was listening to some other things she was saying too.
I am – not unlike Leia – a defensive, prickly, highly strung woman. And because of that I sometimes will take a swing at even people who have my best interests at heart, who care about me, who want to be on my side. It’s not just romantic stuff either, it’s friends and family and well-intentioned strangers. Is that really very unusual? Who hasn’t made mistakes, missed opportunities, been afraid to take a chance on something that could have really been awesome if only you were brave enough to give it a whirl? A good friend, a relative, someone who cares about you can sometimes point that out, give you a stirring pep talk about winning one for the Gipper or whoever, or in the case of truly good friends, very nearly even twist your arm and force you into making the leap. No one says a word when it’s your mom or your best friend spurring you on. The idea that someone, a scoundrel, perhaps, could see through your protestations and breach your defenses and make you realize hey, there’s really something here, maybe I should take a closer look at this concept even though the good little girl in me is telling me not to is the stuff romance novels are made of.
I think this happens a lot and not only in the world of Han and Leia, but also in the worlds of Sam and Diane and Dave and Maddie and Veronica Mars and Logan and Billy Joel and whoever that complicated chick is that he wrote all his good songs about. A woman believes that because of society’s rules, rules written by the patriarchy to keep women in their place, mind you, a man she wants is off limits to her. He’s low class. Unpredictable. Crazy. A downtown man. Like, he’s so totally wrong for her, everyone who’s anyone is telling her so! He’s a scoundrel maybe even!
I think many women depend upon the scoundrels in their lives to take action in situations where said woman is scared (What if he rejects me? What will my friends say?) or is listening too hard to the unhelpful little voices in her head (I so totally should NOT be doing this! I’m such a slut) or is so intent on following the rules (I’m not supposed to kiss guys like this! He voted Trump probably!) that she loses sight of what she herself really wants. So she leaves the ball in his court whilst sending indirect, nonverbal encouragement as a passive way of getting what she wants without having to be the one who initiates it, without responsibility or remorse or risk of rejection. She sends the signals, he pursues or not and she allows herself to pretend she’s getting swept up in the moment if he makes a move. She never has to take a chance that he’s not into it, she never has to really REALLY make the decision to tell society’s rules to eff off until she knows he’s on the same page, and she never has to drop the pretense that she’s anything less than perfectly ladylike. Because one thing most women secretly agree upon regardless of girl power and slut walks, is that chasing men is like a super duperly big no-no.
The problem is NOT men picking up indirect nonverbal encouragement and acting on it. The problem is men ignoring indirect nonverbal DIScouragement, and even direct, emphatic, crystal-clear verbal statements telling them to back the eff up. There is a gulf of difference between these two things.
Han and Leia was not a Pepe Le Pew situation where her lips said no, no but her eyes said yes, yes. There was obvious, definite, 2-sided chemistry between Leia and Han. Theirs was a relationship of friends and comrades. I think a LOT went on that we didn’t see onscreen.
You send the signal and you wait. Leia knew.
I am unclear on how sending the signal and waiting is going to mesh with overt female consent for everything, even a tentative first kiss. I don’t believe that most women are, overnight, going to feel comfy with making the first move towards initiating sexual contact with men. There is a deeply ingrained cultural pressure upon women to follow a pretty narrow set of societal expectations in the sexual arena, few of which involve being the pursuer. There is even an argument to be made that these female preferences for pursue-ee status may be at least in part innate and not cultural. And I don’t think that most men are, overnight, going to feel comfy with women initiating relationships with them, either. Men may want to pursue, may prefer it, may be programmed to do so culturally and/or innately, and we’ve heard enough jokes about desperate women chasing men to know or at least strongly suspect that many guys are put off by Sadie Hawkinses despite the Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope.
Truth – we can’t litigate and legislate romance because it’s all very shades-of-gray-y. I am wary, oh-so-wary of blanket rules that seem to overly simplify a complicated issue that is probably best left to each individual couple to work out for themselves in any given moment. We’re dealing with instincts and desires that run way down deep in places that most of us have never probed (er, so to speak) and personally I trust women to be able to navigate those waters for themselves.
All throughout history, whenever society has acted on behalf of women for their own protection it has manifested itself sooner or later as less freedom for women. I don’t see the consent issue as being any different. The “c” word gets dropped and all of a sudden we’re hearing…from MEN…about what women like and don’t like, about what women want and don’t want, about what women will willingly consent to and what they will not. And apparently one of the things that men have decided that we delicate, wilting, crushably-fragile oh-so-feminine females simply cannot handle is being kissed by someone we’ve known and have interacted with for months without having issued a strict verbal invitation beforehand and without ever having sent any mixed signals. Ok. Sure. Yes. That makes sense (no it doesn’t).
Heads up, dudes, YOU’RE the ones that can’t control yourselves, some of you. Why don’t you let me decide what I like and want for myself? Because I want to be kissed by a scoundrel, I assure you that I do.
And I actually as I write all that, I think I understand the reason why good and decent men can’t let me decide for myself that I want is to be deeply and somewhat forcibly tongued by a man on the run from the Hutts. It’s because blaming men’s bad behavior on Han Solo is easier than considering the possibility that maybe there’s something dark inside of themselves. Something that may need wrangling and taming; something that cannot be indulged even in a society of gross overindulgence. Because I refuse to believe that men are that dumb! I do not and will not believe that most men truly cannot see the difference between someone who is into is and someone who isn’t, into it. I don’t believe for one single solitary parsec that most men cannot see a difference between Harvey Weinstein and Han Solo, that most men truly cannot see the difference between exposing yourself to a woman you barely know and kissing a woman with whom you’ve had a complicated monthslong interpersonal relationship fraught with sexual tension without asking “pretty please with sugar on top” first.
And while I suppose it is possible that a small percentage of men are indeed clueless idiots who are hopeless at reading body language and can’t tell the difference between a movie and real life, it seems far more plausible to me that a much higher percentage of men know exactly when a woman is into it and when she isn’t, it’s just that some of them kind of like it when a woman isn’t into it and wanna do it anyway.
Thus the Han-made-me-do-it defense is not gonna fly with me. We men can’t control ourselves because we’re helpless buffoons…animals, really…easily dazzled by boobies, and such…we can’t control ourselves, so of course we can’t control ourselves, I mean even Han freaking Solo is a rapist, practically, and that’s what we watched growing up, you know, and um, lookit, also girls in bikinis provoke us, to insanity, practically, just to the left of insanity anyways, so maybe, possibly, if it isn’t too much to ask..if you could just give us a pass on the things that some of us did, because we are just dummm, you know, it’s, like, rape culture, I guess, and stuff, and we can’t help it. Beer commercials. Just sayin, you probably ought to be wearing a burka.
This entire argument is contingent upon a kiss that many, many women find romantic and appealing (it ain’t just me, chaps) being bad and why is it bad? It’s bad only because it’s there. It’s bad because we all saw it growing up and that includes some guys who are looking for an easy way to excuse their own bad behavior and that of others so they aren’t guilty by association. To blame it on Han Solo seems to me to be a huge dodge of responsibility, a sidestep, and what’s worse, it’s adding insult to injury. It’s compounding bad behavior by befouling something that was important to not only myself but to many women. And I don’t think that’s right, to take something away from women in order to explain away or justify the bad behavior of men. Any more than it’s right to make women wear burkas to prevent men from raping them.
I am not entirely sure that replacing the occasional unwanted kiss – which women are NOT too fragile to be able to handle, mind you – with women not being able to get what they want from sex because the culture vultures have been too bluntly instrumental about what constitutes “consent”, is a good trade. And honestly, what’s so damn great about “consent” anyway? What does “consent” even really mean? Because it’s not so cut and dry as people want to make it. What if you only consent due to external pressures and societal expectation? Women have consented to all kinds of crazy ass shit over the years when they thought they were supposed to – and still are (Aziz Ansari, looking at you here). I do not believe that swiping right for a shot to be treated as a Tinder cum dumpster by some dude you just met…loudly consenting all the while…is in any way more empowering than Han giving a seemingly reluctant Leia a kiss that she wasn’t quite sure she wanted but then she realized that she actually kind of did.
In fact there’s a suspicious conspiracy theorist in me that is starting to think all this sexual-revolution-but-with-ur-consent jazz is a gambit, a ploy, a way for men to still get exactly what they want while dotting their i’s and crossing their t’s. And what (some)men want is lots of fer-reaky sex with a rotating schedule of messed up girls whose self-esteems are in the toilet, without having to exert any effort as a romantic partners or limiting themselves in any way from the all-you-can-sex buffet. (Some)Men want women to think they’ve held up their end of the bargain by talking super loudly about consent when what many of them are doing is treating women like they are disposable sexbots. (Some)Men seem to want “consensual” sex with women to be like Lando Calrissian sexing up droids (a rather disturbing concept, given that in the Star Wars universe droids seem self-aware, yet can be reprogrammed and have their memories wiped).
By some, I may mean a whole flippin lot of them.
These men want women programmed by the culture like we’re robots. They want us programmed so we kinda feel like we can’t say no to anything (because the underlying threat is, if you don’t consent to everything, there’s always someone else who will) even as they exclaim loudly that it’s ok to say no (just be aware it’s totally over if you don’t consent to everything, because if there’s no one else who will, there’s always Internet porn) and they want us to call that empowerment. They want us to call that feminism!! So they equate a Han-Leia kiss between equals that turns into a relationship, with a grope from a stranger…with a proposition from a boss…with a Louis CK move…with a rape and somehow it’s all the same thing because if it’s all the same thing it not only makes the small things seem bigger but doesn’t it also make the big things seem smaller?
I mean it almost seems like they’re trying to float away with the rest of the garbage.
This piece was originally published on the atomic feminist.
Men hate the scoundrel and bad boy for similar reasons that women hate certain archetypes aimed at men. The represent a fantasy that most of us can never be. Prince Charming is another hated archetype. The difference is that it is easier for heterosexual male fantasies to be critiqued politically than other sexual fantasies.Report
I’m pretty sure that guys generally like Han Solo.Report
Also the people typically played by Clint Eastwood, Bruce Willis, Will Smith, etc. One could almost postulate that the charming scoundrel type is so popular that some people would fail to see the boundaries in planting kisses on people.Report
That’s because the movies’ charming scoundrel is also handsome, competent, and actually a good guy underneath it all, whereas the IRL scoundrel Chad is none of these things.Report
Overgeneralize much?Report
Yeah, well, you know how fragile cis-het white men are.Report
Well, you certainly seem to be, but let’s talk about this. First, an anecdote.
Back in the mid-90s, I was doing computer tech work in inner city schools in South Florida. These were really bad schools in economically depressed areas. It was sad. One day, one of my white coworkers was working among students. One of the young black students looked at him and said, “You’re racist. All white people are racist.”
He was offended, very much so. He couldn’t really let it go. Later, when he told me the story, I just shrugged and said, “Yeah, we kinda are.”
Note, the guy in question wasn’t particularly racist, as far as these things go. He certainly was rather fragile though. Myself, I couldn’t understand why he was so bothered. So a random black girl called you racist? Go home to your big house and get over it.
Over the years, I’ve had a few black people say things like that to me. My response is always, “Yeah, I get that, but I try not to be.” It seems like a good response.
In some ways the statement “all white people are racist” is kind of true. In other ways it’s plainly false. But which ways? Instead of getting offended, I think it’s more useful to explore those differences, and then to ask how we personally fit into the equation. I’m certainly not immune to racist thinking. I don’t think anyone raised in this culture could be.
Is this always true for every generalization, including those about the romantic choices of women? I don’t think so. The question is, how useful is it to explore the contradictions? This is about dialectic, the whole thesis-antithesis-synthesis thing.
So what about “Chads”? Is that a useful generalization? What is the dialectic there? Is the notion that popular guys are all sociopaths, and the women attracted to them are all co-dependent thots? Is that true? In what ways is it true?
One way it is not-at-all-true is that a lot of incel types have a massive sense of entitlement, and this is revealed in how bitter they become when Stacy won’t fuck them. It’s mostly sour grapes.
More than that though, it’s also totally self defeating. It’s just bullshit, tip to tail. Charming sociopaths exist, but not every charming person is a sociopath. If you assume that women are all so universally busted that they only want abusers — well where does that thinking lead?
Women should avoid narcissistic men, even the ugly ones.
How much do we really learn from embittered men who want to criticize the bad choices that women sometimes make?
Myself, I want people (both women and men) to understand how abusive people can fake their personalities. Abusers have a keen sense of vulnerability. They prey on the needy. This is gendered, in the sense the specific nature of the abuse tends to vary between men and women, but abuse is abuse.
I’ve dated two abusive partners, both women. Neither ever hit me, but they cut me deep all the same.
I think I’ve learned from those experiences. I hope I have.
In any case, not every attractive person is an abuser. However, being attractive can certainly help an abusive person get away with more. By contrast, a self-centered, emotionally stunted, abusive narcissist who happens not to be good looking will have a harder time finding victims. I don’t feel bad about this.
Beware of scoundrels who pretend to be good. Prefer those who can “play at” being scoundrels, but who are actually good. It’s possible to tell them apart, but experience is a harsh teacher.
In short, we live in a society.Report
word salad.
it’s a restatement of my comment that the reason people like movie scoundrels while disliking IRL scoundrels is that the movies’ charming scoundrel is also handsome, competent, and actually a good guy underneath it all, whereas the IRL scoundrel Chad is none of these things.Report
I did before I saw that movie about him.
He’s boring.Report
I think Lee overgeneralized a bit (as a kid, I liked the Han Solo character and my sense is most guys did/do). But I think he’s onto something that there is some idealized notion of a scoundrel that guys are expected to be. (Note my use of the passive voice to abjure any responsibility for demonstrating by whom the idealized notion is imposed.)
The idealized scoundrel is supposed to be bad….but not really bad. He’s supposed to be sensitive…as long as it’s sensitive to his love interest’s emotional needs (and not his own). He’s supposed to put his own physical safety in danger to protect the (presumptively weaker) love interest.
That’s not particularly unfair, as idealized notions go. I’m not at all claiming that men have it peculiarly bad because of the “scoundrel ideal,” and I’ve been known to speak in defense of bro dudes (a kind of “scoundrel”). I’m just pointing out that it’s never fun to be held to an impossible standard, just like many of the standards to which women are held. (Well, not “just like”–I believe that it’s tougher for women than for men–but in a similar looking ballpark.)Report
This is what I’m getting at. I’m increasingly growing more cynical of romance and dating as I grow older even though I still want a girlfriend. There just seems to be so many power plays and status seeking behaviors and many, not all but many, women treat the early part of their relationship as their time. Or at least they seem to. Everything is rather ultra-competitive and if you can not perform, you don’t get.Report
Don’t give a F*** then. Be you. If she’s not interested, who cares? You’re cool.
She’s not into you? More fish in the sea. Gotta change the attitude…or at least not show it.Report
The thing is, my experience is totally unlike that. I wonder what is different? Is it the str8 versus queer thing? — but I don’t think so. Sure, gender stuff matters, but we’re all people. Our hearts aren’t so different. Status seeking? Not everyone plays status the same. I know tons of people who give zero fucks about status.
Except of course, I’m sure some hyper-reductive nerd can explain how “It’s still status.” But whatever. I’ve read Impro too. It’s different though. I’ve done the club scene, with the status obsessed. I haven’t done the posh social climber set — cuz I never had a chance there. Instead, I date queer weirdos like me.
Lee, you need to find your own kind of weirdos who won’t care about that shit.
But then, you have to become a weirdo who doesn’t care about that shit.
I suspect you’re playing the wrong game with the wrong people. See what I’m saying?Report
At this point, I think that I’m such an acquired taste that there is no right game or right people for me. I don’t really fit well into any set. What I need is something relatively straight forward, like where you can just say I want to fuck rather directly, but I don’t drip wet hot with chemistry even close enough to get on that path. I guess I’m kind of in the nerd side but I don’t have any fan passions. Carrying about who Harry Potter ended up with just seems not that real to me but it is a passionate thing with others.
I’ve fallen for somebody hard twice in my life. Once when I was a freshman in high school and the other time when I was twenty nine. Both obviously went nowhere but the last one came kind of how so temptingly close but I was in competition with a man who had a better idea on what to do. The later one even leads to a moment in my life that I really wish I could relive and do differently. Just a little more bravery and I wouldn’t be in my position. Otherwise, I’ve had women I’ve kind of felt attracted to or at least saw as possibilities but these went nowhere.
But now I just feel angry and frustrated at being hard behind and dealign with an utterly hostile system. Bend, twist, turn, run, and jump and you still get nothing .Just a strict fierceness screaming at you to do more work and that your pain doesn’t matter.Report
As I think I may have stated once or twice in various threads, I was for a long while in a situation similar to yours. I was a late bloomer. I was angry. I felt left out.
And I felt that I had lost the window of opportunity when it was okay (in our society, at least) to be inexperienced.
I don’t think I was 100% wrong in my feelings or in my assessment of the situation. I was wrong in some of the misogynist or entitled attitudes I adopted or entertained. But I think it was okay to be angry or upset and I think I was on to something about the “window of opportunity” thing (if only because of all the jokes and casual comments about older virgins or nerds…and because of the repeated assumptions, voiced by my circle of friends and acquaintances, that there was something almost wrong about people in my situation). I also had one of those “near miss” situationsyou describe, where I could have/might have acted differently.
I’m in a different situation now, fortunate to have fallen in love with someone who loves me back and who has been there for me over the last several years. (I’d like to think I’ve been there for her, but when it’s come to things like health scares, etc., I’ve so far been the one who’s needed help, and she’s been there.) But I’m not entirely proud of how I got to this place and some of the things I did to get there. And there was a cost to waiting so long, too.
I don’t really have any good advice to give you that you probably haven’t already heard. Veronica’s and Damon’s pieces of advice, for example, are good, but they’re probably not helpful. And of course, my situation is different in many ways because we’re different people and I was a little younger then than you are now. All I can really say is that I’ve been there and I have sympathy and wish you luck.Report
I’m feeling the cost. I didn’t have a high school girlfriend, a college girlfriend, a law school girlfriend, a late twenties girlfriend besides one minor shitty relationship, and a thirty something girlfriend. Its just generally been date after date that went nowhere. Get up, fall down, and get up again.
And I’m worried. I’m worried about being alone for the rest of my life or meeting somebody but having to make some very tough choices like experiencing everything I missed and not having children or getting to have children at a reasonable age. What does it mean to get a girlfriend this late in life? The entire thing seems kind of ridiculous and low status, a sign of lack of desirability.
And the worst part is having to watch everybody have an easier time at it than you. Sure, you might be only getting the high points and thanks to my job, I’ve seen how relationships can go spectacularly bad or the negative parts of sex but there is still a since of being forced to participate and support something you are excluded from.Report
I totally get the feeling you express in your last paragraph. There’s an interesting article by Lori Gottlieb that addresses that feeling. It doesn’t really offer any advice, but it’s probably the most empathetic thing I’ve seen about this [Atlantic: pay wall applies]:
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/06/how-be-okay-being-single/590854/Report
Is it the str8 versus queer thing? — but I don’t think so.
I … kinda do.
As someone who has been temporarily boxed into the straight-passing box several times in life despite my best efforts. Queer culture really *is* less hung up on a bunch of stuff. Not on ALL stuff. And still plenty hung up on a lot of the same stuff. But it’s easier to be a queer weirdo than a straight one *purely on the axis of being a weirdo and given that it’s still a lot harder to be queer than straight in general*.
My queer found family (which oddly includes one definitely straight cis dude that we adopted anyway without qualms)…. my queer found family is way more tolerant of dating variegation, and far less likely to be harassed by their fellow queer acquaintances for being too weird… and has been for two decades… than the folks in any of the mostly-straight found-family-circles that also include me, make room for me, and then in their own dating lives have a WHOLE lot of dumb rules they have to follow even when they hate them.Report
But see! That’s it right there! Doncha see?Report
I kind of blame media on this partially. Mass media exposes people to a lot of propaganda about what dating and romance should look like. Since queer romances were obviously not depicted in main stream media, people absorbed fewer of this propaganda while a lot of straight people were given what they think was a path that must be followed. So if you are straight and did not or can’t follow this path, you are kind of screwed.Report
No means no, but it’s not unreasonable for someone to have to say it twice.Report
I’d personally rephrase it differently. I’d say, “no means no, but it’s not unreasonable for someone to ask twice.”
In other words, the “no” should be controlling unless or until the person saying “no” changes their mind. I’ll also say that while I think it’s okay for someone to ask twice, I’m less willing to sign on to someone asking thrice, or more times. There’s a point at which asking becomes badgering, especially if done repeatedly, in a short amount of time. For the asker, it’s also about decreasing likelihood of success: the more one asks and receives a “no” answer, the more unlikely it’s a good fit anyway.
I’m talking about general presumptions here. I’m not sure I’m okay with establishing hard and fast rules.Report
I accidentally hit the “report” button. Please disregard.
I won’t quarrel with your preferred phrasing; I think we mean the same thing.Report
Breaking Bad explores this territory to perfection.
It was easy in the beginning to vicariously identity with Walter White, transitioning from a meek high school teacher to a bad ass gangster.
But it made clear that the reason we are not all scoundrels, cads, rakes and bad boys is because you have to sacrifice everything else to be one. He ended up sacrificing his family and friends and soul and ended up with nothing to show for it.
Han was never a family man. He wasn’t really even a trusted member of a team. No matter that he flew in at the last moment to join the rebels, its clear that he could just as easily have made the other choice.
We like to imagine ourselves dabbling in the darkness, just dipping our toe in for a moment then retreating back to our identities as husbands and fathers, reliable team members and citizens.
And hey, as a harmless fantasy, why not.
Its practically a trope of its own, the “all around guy” who is safe and trustworthy and reliable but has just a hint of the scoundrel, just enough to be enticing and just ever so slightly dangerous.Report
“Baby, it’s cold outside because we’re on Hoth.”
“Baby, this Carbonite is frozen.”
“Baby, it’s likely to be cold because I’m going to shut everything down but the emergency power systems.”Report
I’ve been a cad. I’ve been Prince Charming. I’ve been a scoundrel. Heck, I’m 100% positive that the first kiss I planted on my now-wife had “scoundrel” stamped all over it! It’s almost as if people can flow in and out of these roles as their mental states, their read of the social queues (signals, if you will) being broadcast by another person, or the situation allows. Like everything dealing with humans, this stuff is messy and complex.
Good stuff as always, Kristin. In honor of this essay, I’m going to replace “that’s what SHE said” with “I can arrange that.”Report
Yes! Exactly what I’m thinking as I’m sitting here reading these comments.
These are all roles we play and not necessarily the sum total of who we are.
People seem to be viewing archetypes as diagnoses and not simply a lens through which to view the world.
IRL there are no Chads. Chad is not a real person. There are no MPDG and there are no scoundrels, not really. They’re all people with motives and needs and while people do tend to shake out into “types” they’re just not so hard and fast as some people seem to think. There are nerds who wear leather and ride motorcycles. Perennial Tarantino bad guy Michael Madsen writes poetry.
A lot of the good guys I know were once bad boys. And I know far too many good guys who decided to become bad boys. This idea that these things are set in stone isn’t real.
Thanks for reading!Report
“And while I suppose it is possible that a small percentage of men are indeed clueless idiots who are hopeless at reading body language and can’t tell the difference between a movie and real life,”
[coughs nervously] This was me, at least when younger. I also assumed there were women interested in me and I was bad at reading the signs (a lot of people around me insisted it must be so). I later figured out … no, that wasn’t the case. There just wasnt any interest.
I think it is interesting to think about this post in light of the Force Awakens because it turned out that hooking up with a scoundrel may not have been the best idea. Although it was quite fun at the time.Report
First point – I think we do a very, very bad job of both telling girls about how their signals might be wrongfully perceived and telling boys how to read and act on signals (or not.)
Second point – I’m not too sure that your kid turning out to be troubled necessarily means you made a mistake with who you pursued a relationship with. A lot went in to Ben turning to the Dark Side including his own free will.
I know this is not what you are doing at all but I am very wary of assigning too much blame for a kid making bad choices onto the mother, and very VERY wary of telling any woman, even a fictional one, that their child turning evil was the result of them having sex with the wrong person.Report
I think one of the problems we’re dealing with here is the impulse to create rules by which to live and to (sometimes) try to impose those rules on others. Rules, especially when they’re translated into laws, but even when they’re only cultural norms, are blunt instruments. They insist on bright, well-defined lines when there are of necessity so many shades of gray. I don’t think we can do without rules entirely. But I agree with what I see as the (implicit) argument of your OP, that we need to recognize that rules can do only so much and that refusing to recognize that fact impedes women’s autonomy. (At least I think you’re arguing that…please correct me if I’m wrong.)
Excellent post, as always, Kristin!Report
Yep, that’s my argument. People love to create systems but systems are blunt instruments, and worse when they’re based on flawed ideas (such as, boys seeing Han Solo turned men into sexual aggressors while simultaneously denying that some men actually just kinda want to be sexual aggressors cause they like it). So it makes me highly wary of the direction things seem to be headed where we’re calling for a complex system of rules to govern sexual relationships when we’re not even willing to talk openly and honestly about why things are the way they are or to acknowledge any wiggle room for nuance. I just think strict definitions are going to end up working against women, not men.Report
I don’t believe for one single solitary parsec that most men cannot see a difference between Harvey Weinstein and Han Solo, that most men truly cannot see the difference between exposing yourself to a woman you barely know and kissing a woman with whom you’ve had a complicated monthslong interpersonal relationship fraught with sexual tension without asking “pretty please with sugar on top” first.
*applauds*
Of course the other, just as important question is how does *society* figure out the difference, though, right?
because (as you know and were in no way denying here) – historically the answer has been “oh well, it’s her fault,” unhappily sweeping things under the rug, and/or honor killings of both perpetrators and victims – so if the rules involve the same actions, it’s real convenient to hide behind them and pretend you couldn’t have known even when you’re fucking Jeffrey Epstein.
My extremely qualified enthusiasm for enthusiastic-consent-modified-by-basic-common-sense (a thing which can include Han Solo, and definitely doesn’t include Aziz Ansari) has nothing to do with wanting to take individual choices away from aaaaaaaanybody, particularly the anybodies who usually have fewer choices, and tons to do with figuring out how the fuck else we hold evildoers accountable. It’s a hard problem.
GREAT essay, I loved it and wanted to yell YESSSSSS out loud several times. (Despite being the person who in Leia’s shoes would have punched Han really hard in the gut. I mean, I would probably have kissed him back LATER, anyways. But don’t mess with the PTSD-scarred kid when it comes to unscheduled makeouts. )Report
My great concern is that we’re simply going to end up codifying a set of rules where the answer is STILL going to be “oh well, it’s her fault” but it’s going to be a more palatable set of rules for people so they accept them without really even questioning it. She went to a guy’s hotel room? In this day and age?? Her fault. She consented to that particular act not because she wanted to, but she felt she had to because she read about it in Teen Vogue? Doesn’t matter, her fault, she consented. Men will get a pass because the women broke the rules and put herself in some situation. Even though the rules were set up a certain way to still give men as much leeway as humanly possible and the rules are always, always going to be handicapped against women and women will be held to them far more strictly. Until we reconcile that double standard I am going to remain very wary of rules, if that makes sense.
I feel like we are just taking the teensiest of baby steps to a more reasonable view of sexuality and I don’t want this to boomeranging around back onto us so we’re all having to have our elderly aunts accompanying us to work to protect our virtue or whatever.
I am all for enthusiastic consent modified by basic common sense. Absolutely. It’s just that I can see some very real times when consent is being given just not audibly, LOL.
As always, thanks for reading!Report