As it becomes more and more evident that I can't stave off starting to date again for much longer, I find the need to face certain theories about dating and gender head on. There are some theories out there I have fought against and insisted could be repudiated, but experiential evidence has often not supported my position, and despite my best efforts, I sometimes find myself wondering if I must be forced to accept them as I move forward. In the end, I suppose it's better to know the truth, even if it's ugly, than to operate under hopeful misconceptions (if in fact they are misconceptions).

As such, I offer you the following pop quiz. Please individually evaluate, with supporting evidence, the extent of veracity of the following two statements generally expounded by (among others) a vast majority of (heterosexually-themed) dating books aimed at women:

1) Men are primarily interested in the chase. Once they know they "have" a woman (physically, emotionally, or both), their interest wanes and they are off to look for the next "challenge."

2) Therefore, in order to not only "catch" but "keep" a man, a woman must keep up the fantasy of the chase, regardless of whether she has decided she is partial to that particular man. She must always make him feel there is competition involved, and that there is always the imminent danger of withdrawal of favor. She should never admit true feelings sans at least some small measure of doubt/conditionality attached (if she wants the relationship to continue).

For extra credit, please debate the veracity of the following two widely-promoted perspectives, providing proof to back up your argument:

3) A man will do or say anything to a woman, including lying, in order to get laid. (A.K.A., "A man will always think with his dick first.")

4) Therefore, a woman should believe nothing a man says or does pre-coitus. The only way to know who he truly is and how he really feels about you is to see how he behaves toward you after the fact.

Do you have a preference during sex?

It's often said men are more visual than women, and so the assumption is that males always prefer lights-on sex, while women, who are said to be less visual and have more shyness/hangups about their bodies, always prefer lights off.

The topic came up in a discussion I was having the other day, and my first instinct was to say I prefer lights off, or very dim lighting in dark rooms (candles, fireplaces, other low lights that cast shadows and make the room glow). This is not so much to do with not being visual or being shy as that I like the moods these darkened environments evoke. When a room is entirely dark, there is a secret, clandestine, even slightly dangerous feel that heightens one's senses and arousal. Not being able to see where you will be touched next and knowing your partner can't predict what he'll feel next from you is a very seductive, exciting state of mind. And low lighting in an otherwise dark room has a romantic, warm, loving feel to it that can add a lot of emotion to the sexual interaction. Plus, such lighting makes the lines and curves of your lover's body--and your own--seem soft, inviting, and luminous, and that can be very appealing and can make you feel very sexy.

But after having that first impulse, I realized that while I am attracted to darkness during sex as a mood, I don't really *prefer* it to be dark. I'm not afraid of or turned off by sex in the light. In fact, some of the greatest sexual moments I've had have happened during full daylight hours. And during those moments, I don't remember once wishing it were dark instead. I enjoy seeing the totality of my lover's body in the light, stretched out before me, allowing me to decide exactly what I want to touch, lick, caress, tease, etc. next. I like being able to see the look in his eyes, the changes in his face as his desire takes hold, his skin (and other key areas) reacting to touch, his muscles stretching and contracting as he moves. Though I do sometimes get shy, I also like seeing him looking at me and enjoying what he's looking at. And I love the feel of riding my lover in full daylight, with the sun and morning air stirring all around us. I feel bright and powerful and energetic and full of hope. As opposed to the sexy clandestine nature of the dark, this is an entirely different kind of sexy. This is me and that man saying, This is us, world. Look at us. Look at how we move. We're beautiful together.

So, on second thought, is either a preference? Not really. I like both, and I like to mix them up, depending on what mood I'm in, what locale I'm in, and what time of day it is. When it comes down to it, any of it is good, so long as I'm getting to have sex with someone I want to have sex with. But one thing I DID realize when thinking about it is that it seems it's not a light room I mind so much as extremely UNNATURAL lighting. I like sex in natural daylight. I like sex in the dark or with luminous "mood lighting." But the mental image of sex under harsh florescent bulbs, for instance--THAT gives me the shudders. It feels...institutional, clinical. Plus it makes bodies look somehow green and tired. Yuck.

So I'll have a little light, a little dark, and a little chiarooscuro in my sex life. But no industrial lighting, please. (Guess that means I'm not a good candidate to become a porn actress, eh?)

So how about you? Your preference for sex: lights on, lights off, or other? And in your experience, do you think this preference does skew by gender, or is that just a myth?

Of late I've been reading a lot of sociological and psychological writing about male behavior and cultural norms, and came across an interesting quote attributed to the sociologist Michael Kimmel:

"In large part, it's other men who are important to American men; (they) define their masculinity, not as much in relation to women, but in relation to each other. Masculinity is largely a homosocial enactment." *

What this (and other studies I've been reading) means: men (or at least American men) from adolescence (or even earlier) measure their "manliness" based primarily on male feedback--NOT on female feedback. As in, it doesn't prove anything if their girlfriends or wives think they're manly--other men have to think they're manly or it "doesn't count."

On the flip side (and this is based solely on observation, not on a study I've read), it seems that women don't base their measure of how "feminine" they are on other female opinion. They base it on male feedback.

So essentially, both genders are looking only to men to define what makes the masculine AND feminine ideal for our species.

And beyond that, I think that it's quite possible that women quite often choose to define "manliness" by the male opinion as well, rather than creating their own gender norm for what that means. Sure you hear women saying they wish all men could be "nice guys," but when you ask most women to conjure up a mental image of a "nice guy" and then conjure up a mental image of a "manly guy," I suspect most wouldn't necessarily see the same guy in their mind's eye.

Something about all this is so incredibly disturbing and imbalanced. I don't understand why a woman's opinion matters less to both genders. Why wouldn't, for instance, a straight male who wants to "mate" care more the female's perception of manliness than the males? Or why wouldn't we both want some kind of gender-balanced norm? And why are we so intent on having a cultural norm for these concepts, anyway? What good has it ever done us?

Don't you think it's time for a new definition of what makes us "masculine" and "feminine?" If so, what do you think that definition should be?

Or do you think it's time for no definition at all, beyond what we've got between our legs?

*I'm not certain of this, because the article I was reading attributed poorly, but based on some quick research, it appears the quote is taken from Kimmel's book Manhood in America: A Cultural History. Read Salon's review about the book here, if you're interested.