Girl Meets Boy and the Taboo of Friendship

With the release of “Sex and the City 2″ came Kim Cattrall’s refusal to pose with a cougar. She is not afraid of the majestic cat – sorry lions – but rather does not want to perpetuate the stereotype that the urban usage of the term brings with it. “Cougar” describes an older woman out to have sex with a younger man. Ever since Bella DePaulo asked to reflect on the label, I’ve been pondering it and would like to share some thoughts. Feel free to add yours in the comments!

There are numerous bothersome layers to “cougar” – it is sexist, singlist, and heteronormative. And it reflects the taboo of friendship between men and women. It is sexist because it denigrates women – there is no comparable term that describes older men going after younger women. In fact, that constellation seems to be encouraged, almost taken as normal (yeah, yeah, I know the evolutionary psychology argument – men are just trying to spread their genes more widely and more successfully – I will take on evolutionary psychology in a future post, so I will leave this aside for now). And the urban usage of “cougar” is also singlist. It reflects the myth that single women and especially single men are only interested in one thing: Sex. Could it be possible that they are interested in just having fun at a night club, you know, like enjoy the dancing? It is amazing that this thought doesn’t even seem to occur! The only possible thing a single woman could be looking for is a partner – and if it’s not a marriage partner, it must be a bed partner. And, of course, the same is true for the young man: He must only be interested in sex. It would be entirely impossible for him to be interested in a woman older than him because she might have more experience and thus be fun to talk to. Finally, heteronormativity, especially in its historical definition, plays in here as well: A woman must be interested in a man.

What about the taboo of friendship? That goes a little deeper and ties in with my experience of being back in school. I am a single woman in her early forties often surrounded by men in their mid- to late-20s. Granted not in nightclubs but at classes but still I have often wondered if my interactions with these men would be completely different if I, too, were male. Of course, it might be my imagination but there always seems to be a cougar lurking in the back of people’s heads! The only thing I could possibly be interested in is sex (of course, it might not have helped that I recently had on my Facebook profile “Rachel likes Sex at Dawn” since it was entirely unobvious that this is a book reference not a sexual preference… I couldn’t help leaving it since it was such beautiful double entendre… Oh, well.). Would these guys be more open to email, talk, and meet with me if I were male? Would they see my reaching out to them as something other than me hitting on them? To me, if the answer is “yes” – and I suspect that it is, this points to one of the dark sides of matrimania: Because we are so culturally indoctrinated with the idea that the only valid interaction between men and women is one that at least potentially leads to matrimony, we completely miss opportunities for friendship!

I have also observed some internalized singlism. It starts with hugs. I have made the conscious choice that I need to give and get lots of hugs – something I am still learning thanks to a Prussian upbringing that disdained hugs. I am getting pretty good at hugging women. But men? That is a whole other learning experience because of all the matrimanical assumptions that are triggered (or are these heteronormative? Whatever, I’d say, some stereotypical assumptions are being triggered!). Why is hugging a person of the opposite sex more taboo? Again, I think it is because of the taboo of opposite-sex friendships. Men and women are supposed to partner up. Hugging across gender-lines is a form of partnering up, so you better only do that with potential marital partners. This seems so absurd as I am writing this, I am hoping that someone will set me straight but at least in my experience this seems to be at play. Maybe this is just a reflection of my own internalized singlism… Plus, I have also observed that most of the hugging itself is only going on between women. Men don’t hug each other, which is a completely different taboo… Or maybe not.

Share this post with others:
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email
This entry was posted in Feminism, Singles By Choice and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Girl Meets Boy and the Taboo of Friendship

  1. RedKiwi says:

    I sometimes wondered how my relation with my friends would go if I was of the same sex as they, I mostly had female friends that were close, and they usually get the wrong idea. I guess it would be easier if I would have seen them less. About the hugging.. I once gave a hug to a friend in need and she interpreted that as a gesture that we should be together.. yeah. >_>

    Unfortunately, you can’t really escape this even on the internet. Humans have been programmed for too long to see people as either female or male and not like just another human being.

  2. RedKiwi says:

    Oh, need to get my hands on Sex at Dawn, still in the pre-order phase at book depository. Also, another interesting read I found to be http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/book/9781587314650/Libido-Dominandi

  3. Rachel says:

    It’s great to hear from the “other side,” RedKiwi, although it’s sad that your stories basically mirror mine… And I think you’re right: It’s all the programming we’re exposed to that suggests that we should be coupling up. Plus, a devaluation of friendship in general – after all once you find The One, who needs friends?!? (Just a second of thought should burst that myth but…).

    If you’re interested in monogamy busting research, you can also check out Myth of Monogamy and/or some of Helen Fisher’s work, although she is now working for match.com, which seems to totally contradict her findings…

  4. Rachel says:

    The Libido Dominandi book you mentioned, RedKiwi, sounds fascinating! Granted I am reading an ad plus this Illuminati tie-in makes me wonder if this is a conspiracy theory book (or maybe it can just be read this way…). Here are some quotes from the ad:

    Unlike the standard version of sexual revolution, Libido Dominandi shows how sexual liberation was from its inception a form of control. The logic is clear enough: Those who wished to liberate man from the moral order needed to impose social controls as soon as they succeeded because liberated libido led inevitably to anarchy.

    Over the course of two hundred years, those techniques became more and more refined, eventuating in a world where people were controlled, not by military force, but by the skillful management of their passions. It was Aldous Huxley who wrote in his preface to the 1946 edition of Brave New World that “as political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase.”

    This book is about the converse of that statement. It explains how the rhetoric of sexual freedom was used to engineer a system of covert political and social control. Over the course of the two-hundred-year span covered by this book, the development of technologies of communication, reproduction, and psychic control – including psychotherapy, behaviorism, advertising, sensitivity training, pornography, and, when push came to shove, plain old blackmail – allowed the Enlightenment and its heirs to turn Augustine’s insight on its head and create masters out of men’s vices. Libido Dominandi is the story of how that happened.

    Still, I hope my library can get this book since it might be interesting to check out…

  5. RedKiwi says:

    Yeah, I carry my tin foil hat with me at all times but I don’t mind reading about anything as long as it’s well documented. Can you talk to your library to get stocked on certain books? That’s amazing. And I’m guessing you just have to have a subscription?

  6. Rachel says:

    Nope. They don’t have every book but they have this wonderful system that links libraries in a couple of states together, which makes it more likely to get a book (and I was able to order this one from another library). Sure you have to wait a few days but still! And if all else fails, there’s interlibrary loan, which can reach any book in any library in the country (I think). I rarely use that anymore since the Link+ system usually allows me to get books from other libraries (it’s a bit more straight forward than ILL plus you don’t have to wait weeks for a book).

    Of course, “Sex at Dawn” is too new for the library, so I will probably end up having to buy it…

  7. Pingback: Rachel’s Musings » Is Coupling Natural?

Please leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>