WOMANIZING

What exactly is a womanizer. Well, it's not just a guy who has had a half-dozen affairs. It certainly is not a one-woman or two-women man. Franklyn Delano Roosevelt was not a womanizer, though he had a mistress during an extensive period of his adult life. She was possibly his only extra-marital affair. Presidents Kennedy and Clinton were notorious womanizers. Among literary lights., Casanova was a well known practitioner, though a lesser known Viennese author, Dr. Arthur Schnitzler, probably racked up a larger number of sexual liaisons. One dictionary defines a womanizer as one who "pursues women illicitly or excessively." Try defining "excessively." Having problems? One can never be too thin or too rich. What about too curious sexually? The dictionary definition falls short. A womanizer is a man who successfully makes a career of bedding down as many women as he can. It may not be his primary career; after all, one must make a living, and pursuing women can be an expensive sport. Still, it is a pursuit which requires dedication. Sort of like a gunslinger with many notches on the barrel of his gun.

Should you choose to keep an open mind, I offer an alternative definition. A womanizer is a man who takes care of the needs and desires of many women. It is a two way street. Both the physical and psychological relationship between a womanizer and his amours is extremely complex. Probably a little of each definition should apply.

Ruyard Kipling had it right. Though he was speaking of addiction to travel, his words could equally apply to addiction to womanizing. As I discovered later, both addictions are tantalizing.

"Speakin' in general, I 'ave tried 'em all —
The 'appy roads that take you o'er the world.
Speakin' in general, I 'ave found them good
For such as cannot use one bed too long,
But must get 'ence, the same as I 'ave done,
An' go observin' matters till they die."

Let's face it. There's tremendous B.S. on the subject of womanizing. Morality police loudly and repeatedly claim that there are unappetizing inequities between most womanizers and the objects of their attraction. The men are powerful, and the women usually young, romantic and foolish. That is the conventional wisdom, but it's bullshit, and doesn't hold up under strict analysis.

Power can be measured in various ways — physical strength, beauty, charisma, star quality, political status and money. The first term is usually used with reference to animals. The strongest bull gathers the most cows. The remaining terms apply to men. "Money" is often the key word, since most people visualize womanizing as rich old men seducing beautiful young women. The old "Bird in A Gilded Cage" refrain.

Money, however, is not a sine qua non for womanizing. On any high school or college campus, there are lotharios who, while not wealthy, garner the lion's share of young women. Jocks do particularly well. Even with mature men, while the power of money may be the fulcrum on which many relationships rest, it is not always the deciding factor. Robert, an English friend of mine, another womanizer, was always surrounded by adoring young women. This seemed odd, since he was short, stocky, bald and wore glasses. At first, I wondered what the magnetic attraction was. It eventually dawned on me. Robert loved women. He truly loved them.

Always polite, he opened doors and pulled out chairs. He expressed admiration for their clothes, their coiffures, their jewelry. He kissed hands, flattered and paid attention to their every word. And it was all genuine. He really loved women. You know what? Women instinctively recognize this quality in a man, and they return the attention and affection — in spades.

So much for the popular conception of the powerful male. As for the women being young, foolish and vulnerable, 'tain't necessarily so. Many of today's young women are a sophisticated bunch — tough minded indeed. There are enough of them these days to deserve a proper category — Alpha Women. The Anna Nicole Smiths of the world are aware that you can marry more money in five minutes than you can earn in a lifetime. So, whoever hits on whom, the responsibility goes both ways. Older men can be just as gullible as sweet young things, particularly if the young woman in question is sending out charmingly cute signals.. At certain ages, men too are subject to ego trips, particularly those which offer hope of recapturing one's youth. This is not a new reality. Call it manopause. Some mature readers may remember Marlene Dietrich in a 1930 movie called "The Blue Angel." For more recent examples, one has only to read the tabloids. There are plenty of young women aware of the needs of mature men. The day of the vamp is not over, though approaches are more subtle.

I had my own ego trip forty years ago. I was about to marry an attractive young lady twenty-five years my junior. I was reasonably prosperous though, in her eyes, I was considered super rich. When we approached her parents, her mother, a pragmatic lady, was enthusiastic. [Most women are much more practical than men.] Her father seemed uncertain. When pressed for his objections, he asked, "Do you think my daughter would still be interested in you if you did not have so much wherewithal?" I laughed and answered, "Would you ask me a similar question if I were very handsome, and she wanted to marry me for my looks?" It is perfectly acceptable for a man to choose a partner because she is beautiful. Why should a woman be considered a gold digger if she seeks a partner who is rich? Is the man called a "beauty digger"? If we condemn such relationships, shouldn't the blame be placed equally?

A good friend of mine, a very successful international businessman and a notorious womanizer, tells me that he hates the term. In the public eye, "womanizer" has a negative connotation, a faint whiff of fire and brimstone, an implication that one is doing something immoral, if not illegal. Note that there is no parallel term "manizer." ["Slut" has an entirely different connotation.] Still, the practice is certainly an equal opportunity occupation. This opprobrium probably originated either with women fearful of straying husbands or, more likely, from the macho concept that a woman is property and must be protected from lechery, i.e. other men's lechery. Whatever the source, in the opinion of this writer, the whole concept stinks. It is part of the recent subjugation of men to the growing power of women in our society, a subjugation which has slowly but surely been accelerating.

My friend claims, and I agree, that the subject of womanizing is rife with hypocrisy. Most men, regardless of their protestations, would become womanizers if they had the time, opportunity, exposure and wherewithal. Unfortunately, most of us work nine to five jobs in small offices or factories where opportunities for meeting available women are limited. In spite of this, enough men take advantage of this limited supply to insure that office romances are ubiquitous, as frequently illustrated in novels and movies. Men who move around and have wider exposure usually take advantage of their contact opportunities. Almost all pilots, traveling salesmen, railroad personnel, overseas workers and sailors (a girl in every port) womanize. Sports heroes and rock idols make sexual news every day. Incidentally, the same rule applies to mobile women, e.g. flight attendants, who rack up affairs as well as miles, and school teachers, who regularly travel on long summer vacations.

Probably the most extreme hypocrisy on the subject of womanizing was the ordeal that President Bill Clinton had to go through because of his foolish little "parties" with Monica Lewinsky. Was he a good President? Did he bring peace and prosperity to the Country? Was he intelligent, well organized, capable? All irrelevant. Horrors! The S.0.B., a married man, let a young girl go down on him. Let him burn in Hell — or at least be impeached. All this invective from politicians, most of whom, given the chance, would undoubtedly have succumbed. Most of them already have. Womanizing, even in high places, should be a personal affair. If the man is married and his tryst is discovered, his wife obviously has a say in the matter. It is no one else's fuckin' business. Hypocrites, of course, disagree.

How many women does a man need to seduce (or be seduced by) to be termed a womanizer? Good question. Believe it or not, there are a few heroes who have had more than 1,000 conquests. People like Frank Sinatra, Mick Jagger or Portfirio Rubirosa are probable examples. I have heard claims of up to 5,000 women, but remain skeptical. Assuming an active sex life of sixty years (starting at the age of fifteen and terminating or dwindling at seventy-five), reaching such a figure would require nearly two "conquests" a week. Since some preliminary wooing is almost always required, and not all are one-night-stands, it boggles the mind to think that anyone could reach that horrendous number. After all, the legendary Don Juan claimed only about 2,500 mistresses and, while Casanova's memoirs boast that he made love to thousands, the written records of the time list only 116. Even I have done better than that. Among the younger set, this may not seem like a terribly high number of amours but, for my generation, it is way above average.

I have no figures, real or imagined, as to the number of "conquests" made on the distaff side of the womanizing equation, but the number is rapidly increasing, particularly between younger women and mature men. The naive may ask what possible reason a sensible girl could have for pursuing or accepting a relationship with a much older man, particularly if the man is married? Putting aside infatuation and hero worship, since older men are more likely to be well-fixed, there are often attractive material opportunities which beckon. Gifts of designer clothing or expensive jewelry. Even small but elegant gifts such as upscale sexy silk undergarments, e. g. what we used to call a "dance set." [Boy, am I showing my age.] All-expense-paid assignations in far-away places. Gourmet meals in four-star restaurants. In short, quid pro quo or perhaps quiff pro quo. And maybe even love, which is itself quid pro quo. We all tend to fall in love with those who dote on us and take good care of us. When consenting adults over twenty-one go into such situations with eyes wide open, it is their business, not ours.

Even if marriage is unlikely, the affair can be exciting while it lasts. Why not just enjoy the ego trip of being "pursued" by powerful men, be they politicians, successful actors, TV personalities, rock stars, sports icons or just plain old Daddy Warbucks? Women's liberationists find these scenarios disturbing, but it is exactly the liberation of women which has made such affairs more commonplace. There are many young women these days who, aware of the perils, still say, "Why the Hell not?"

From my own womanizing experience, once I could afford to treat the ladies well, I found and still find it almost impossible to describe the heartwarming glow on the face of a woman who has just received an expensive gift, one which she never in a million years thought possible to own. Or the excitement of a young lady, previously bound by economics to her native town or country, when you introduce her to Paris or New York or Honolulu. A television ad shows a young lady being told by her parents that they are giving her a new CD player for her 18th birthday. They then pull back window curtains and show her a new automobile (obviously with a CD player inside) with a large gift bow on top. A look of astonishment spreads over her face, which then turns into a look of sheer joy as she dashes outside to look at her gift. "I can't believe it," she screams. On a smaller scale, the reactions were similar with my ladyloves. One woman I travelled extensively with was angry and depressed when we broke up, but today is a friend who admits that our times together constituted the best years of her life. Womanizers give as well as receive. Bluenoses will claim that these young women are selling themselves. No, they are trading human experiences, something we all do every day. Are there broken hearts and sometimes extended periods of sorrow after many of these liaisons end? Of course. But the sad fact of life is, "no pain — no gain." A person who never makes a mistake never achieves anything. Is there occasionally a suicide or a real tragedy as a result of a breakup? Sure, just as there are suicides and major tragedies after a teenage romance, a failed exam or the loss of a job.

Since the term "womanizer" carries with it certain sneering undertones, we could of course eliminate it. I can recommend a good unisex substitute, usable for both men and women who enjoy playing the field. Refer to us as "free spirits." But why is an alternative necessary? Womanizing is a perfectly acceptable avocation, honored by tradition and boasting an ancient history. It is a fun game thoroughly enjoyed by both players and, in the vast majority of cases, if not taken too seriously, relatively harmless.

Womanizing is not a new occupation or preoccupation. It goes back thousands of years. You will find plenty of evidence for it in the Bible. The only difference is that the words making love, copulating or fucking were not in use at that time. The term used frequently in Biblical texts is "knowing." "David knew her" would be equivalent to the modern "David screwed her." There is some logic in this old term, for knowing someone in the Biblical sense changes things. It establishes a special bond. To quote a long-dead gentleman, Senac De Meilhan, "A quarter hour's physical intimacy between two persons of different sexes who feel for each other, I won't say love, but liking, creates a trust, a tender interest that the most devoted friendship does not inspire, even when it has lasted ten years."

A friend wrote a song on this subject many years ago. Played on national radio by a disc jockey called Dr. Demento, it was entitled "In the Biblical Sense of the Word."

"When Adam met Eve in the Garden
And tasted the apple of life,
After only a brief hesitation.
Came an overpowering sensation.

"He suddenly wanted to touch her, hug her and squeeze her, but more,
He wanted to know her, to know her, to know her
In the Biblical sense of the word.

"Now, Sampson was Biblically macho

With hair still unshorn and in place,
but Delila, a devious frail
Proved his strength of little avail.

"Weak, ... (refrain)

"What children are taught, it ain't necessarily true.
The folks in the Bible did everything modern folks do.

"Solomon, mighty King of the Jews,
Whose wisdom was known far and wide,

Sought a woman with whom to unwind
From Sheba, whose Queen blew his mind.

"Crazy, ... (refrain)

"Like us all, the men in the Bible,
Be they first or most strong or most wise,
For that real special glow wanted women to know,
To know, in the Biblical sense, in the Biblical sense of the word."

King Solomon, of course, was a notorious womanizer. Aside from Delilah, Sampson's sexual exploits were not covered in the Bible, but it is highly likely that, with his macho reputation, he was the object of loads of female attention. Adam, poor fellow, was obviously not a womanizer. On reconsideration, maybe he was. After all, he screwed all the women in the world.

BEGINNINGS

As a result of my basic shyness, reinforced by my mother's influence, "sexual" activities during my first two years of high school were limited to frequent masturbation. Masturbation is not the answer to a young man's dreams. It may provide an appetizer but, if there is no main course, you remain hungry. Still, as Woody Allen comments, it has the advantage of being "sex with someone you love."

There were a couple of dates with a girl named Fran. Since she was about as shy as I was, and since the mores at that time required at least two or three encounters before even attempting a good night kiss, these dates came to naught.

Well, not exactly naught. Fran had a friend who soon caught my attention, a very lively girl with strawberry blond hair. You have already encountered her and know what a continuing influence she had on my life. Her name was Annie. "Saucy" would have been a better moniker. Perhaps it was the devilish red glint in her hair that attracted me at first sight, and I mean ATTRACTED. I was doomed. Years later, I found a poem to express my feelings. Eugene Field is famous for children's poems such as "Wynken, Biynken and Nod" or "The Gingham Dog and the Calico Cat." The sentiment in this poem of his and particularly the reference to "original sin," more closely tunes in to my adolescent love.