Main Logo The American-Female Perspective
Contents Editor's Note: This author was written by a female friend of Bubba's in response to last issues Thought For The Soul.

By Gigi.

I'm writing to respond to the article, The Chimp-Gorilla Hypothesis.

First, let me say that I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article! Absolutely loved the wit (I know, you say it's because I'm American and I'm starving for it...) and the definition of the word, "fancy" and the "full disclosure" bit. Very entertaining, thank you.

I understand this article was done from the authors perspective and I respect that. We are, after all, creating our own realities. Here's my reality:

I disagree with the authors statement that all women want Gorillas, i.e., bastards for lovers. This generalisation is ridiculous! Sure, you may know a lot of women who seem to only take on bastards for lovers, but I assure you, it's the minority. Yea, like I want to wake up next to someone who's going to be an ass to me. Right. What sane human would want to have a bastard in their life, especially one as a lover?

Yes, many women desire an exciting lover. Lets be honest: the truth is *both* men and women desire wild and exciting lovers. Men and women are not so different that they don't desire the same elements in a lover. Who wouldn't want a lover who is exciting, enticing and even a little bit dangerous? I think the important distinction, which must be made, is how that changes when someone desires to be in a long-term relationship (LTR) which will most likely result in offspring.

When it comes to creating an LTR (especially one that includes the desire to reproduce), both sexes become selective. No woman wants to reproduce and 'settle down' with an immature, irresponsible, wild man - no matter how sexually appealing he is. To put it plainly: each person who desires an LTR *needs* a partner who will ultimately BE THERE. That's what makes a relationship: two persons working towards the goal of creating a life and family together. Equally, the man seeking an LTR wants a woman who will be a good partner, lover, and mother to his children.

Editor's Note: This is a bit unfair, since this issue's Thought For The Soul addresses the issue of women settling down with nice guys to raise kids and this article was obviously written before seeing that.

It has been a woman's instinct since the beginning of time to choose the best reproductive partner possible - which meant the strongest, the richest, etc. There are all kinds of sociological studies done on this topic. Historically, women have had to be very selective with whom they slept because pregnancy was almost inevitable. I am eternally thankful for the advent of birth control as it levels the sexual playing field. It allows me the freedom that men have enjoyed for ages - to satisfy and explore my sexual desires, while having the ultimate power to decide if and when and with whom to have children.

Now that the distinction between having a lover and having an LTR has been made, lets get back to the Gorilla vs. Chimp (i.e., bastard vs. wimp) analogy - just because people (both genders) desire enticing lovers does not mean they want to be treated unkindly. (This obviously excludes those who are masochistic in nature.)

Can a man be both sexually exciting, somewhat wild, and even a bit dangerous and still be kind and compassionate? I think so. I've had such lovers. I would challenge the author to search within himself to find those elements of his personality and bring them forth.

Editor's Note: You've never met me have you?

There are women who actually look for those qualities in which the author seems to think automatically disqualify a man from the status of lover: kindness and compassion. I am one of those women. I would also add to that a sense of gentleness, intuitiveness, (it does exist in some men - I have found a few to be extremely intuitive!), and a keen sense of respect for life (all life - from nature to humankind).

Editor's Note: I'm a vegan. Trust me. It's not a babe magnet.

Yea, you're thinking a chimp: what a wimp, right? Wrong. I like a man who physically may look more like a gorilla, but he's secure enough about himself to know that he doesn't have to exude manhood from every pore.

The movie When Harry Met Sally makes a valid point that is worth mentioning. I think that women can have male friends and not be sexually attracted to them, but I think it is near impossible for a man to NOT sexually desire their female friends. Men and women think differently; men and women are not biologically built the same. I have male friends, some of which I'm not the least bit interested in sexually. However, I think its safe to say that the male-friends in my life would, if given the opportunity (that would ideally be exempt from any negative consequences), choose to have a go with me.

Does this mean that women are by nature, simply more selective? Most likely. Men just don't seem to be all that selective when it comes to having sex. If given the opportunity, they'll go for it. Stereotypically, men want sex; women want relationships. Does that automatically make most men bastards? Hmmmmm...

Of course I don't think that. I'm too much of an optimistic free-spirit to believe that crap nor do I want to believe it. There *has* to be hope! But it does raise an interesting question and this response could have been written from the angle of, well, what have we got to choose from, for piss sake?

Last night I came across a calendar for teenage girls in the bookstore I frequent. Here's a quote from the month of July:

"So what exactly is a sensitive boy? You know, that guy who's kinda like your best friend, but for some reason you have absolutely no physical attraction to? Sorta like that. The guy who'll agree when you tell him that all men are dogs. That's a sensitive boy, he understands."

I guess I have to admit that the idea that a sensitive boy as an honorary eunuch is out there. From my perspective, my lover had better damn well be sensitive; I loathe machoism. What a turn-off! A man can be masculine without being macho - he's called a secure man. He knows who he is and what he's capable of and therefore doesn't need to act macho.

To sum it up, women want exciting lovers who are not bastards; women want to be just-friends with some men, leave it at that; because women are naturally selective, we still control the sexuality between both sexes, and women want LTRs with good, decent men.

My conclusion: the author needs to get out more and create more opportunities to meet women (remember, the strongest pheromone is self-confidence). Do some travelling. Come to America. *grin*

Webmasters Note:
OK People. Usually there is an email link on external articles, but being as this is someone I care about, and as I don't really want her getting some of the crap I get, I haven't put a link in. If you want to get a comment to Gigi mail them to me and I will pass them on.

e-mail Contents...

Copyright 2000 Critical Miss Gaming Society

What do you think of this article?

It ascended to heaven and walked with the gods.
It was very good.
It was pretty good.
It was okay.
It was a bit bad.
It was very bad.
It sucked, really, really badly.