heh heh heh... melon.
Ok. So as you may know, I've always been a supporter of a famous Jeri Hall quote,
And it's not a 'barefoot & pregnant in the kitchen' sort of thing. And it's really quite truthful. How often have you been attracted to someone till the first time you visit their home, and think, "Damn! She's a total slob! You've got a swiffer girl, use it!" When you see how someone cares for their living space, it can be a total turn off. The space itself isn't an issue. It can be a studio appartment or a 3 bedroom house. If it's a hot mess of old newspapers and banana peels, you're primal instinct of not wanting to share a cave with someone who can't throw the brontosaurus bones out the door hole to keep the tigers from being lured in by the smell of decaying dino flesh and eating you in the night kicks in. You'll be hightailing it out of there the second you finish wiping the cum off yourself with one of the many chinese takeout menus scattered across the futon upon which you just finished banging her. And when you get home, you'll wash your dick with Listerine because it's the most people-friendly germ killer you've got, after scrubbing down with your Axe shower gel till the lingering smell of Doritos and sweat can no longer be detected.
My point: You'll hit that, cause you're already there. But you'll never go back for seconds. Cause if that's the way she treats her own sanctuary, you can't expect her to change should you ever grow close enough to share one.
As for the chef bit, well that's just plain easy. Way to a man's heart = his stomach. That's the whole mother bit right there. Men want to be taken care of (as do women). And if you can cook, well that's just a big 'ol gold star by your name. My evidence would be the reactions I've had from various boys, friends, and boyfriends- who offered their appreciation for meals or dishes I've made them. (And don't say that they're just being nice, cause I beg for brutal honesty.) Every man I've ever cooked for has looked at me in a new way post-meal consuption. It made my brother in-law more approving of my visits to his & my sister's house whenever I wanted to visit. My first boyfriend said it showed him that I was willing to go to a good deal of effort to do something nice for him and make him happy. It made my step-father more accepting of my nose piercing, and reassured him and my mother that I have at least one redeeming quality. Another ex would wife me for a lifetime supply of pie.
My point: Men love it if you can cook, though it's not necessarily an indication that they will want you chained to the stove for the rest of your life- unless he's a Quaker. But beware if his mother's Italian or Southern, in which case, you have your work cut out for you. (Accept recipies from his mother's collection as graciously as possibly, though he should know how to make those things himself, and should cook them for you- not hand you a recipie card and send you in to the kitchen with a pat on the ass.)
Not much explaining needed for the 'whore in the bedroom' part is there? I think the whole quote is really a variation on the 'Madonna/Whore' concept (not Madonna the singer, read this), the idea that men want a saint in public, and sex slave in private. Someone who will take care of family, community, and home, but still be able to provide him with the carnal pleasures of flesh. This dichotomy is actually a problem for some couples, as they have trouble sexually objectifying their partner/princess/queen; the (future) mother of their children. To them, this is a woman to be respected and cared for, provided for, but not someone they can fuck. Some men just have trouble with the concept of putting their dick in the mouth of the woman who kisses their children goodnight. And hey- when I put it like that, it's vaguely understandable. Sex and intimacy register at different levels of importance in any given relationship. I personally have had more than one relationship ended by physical incompatability.
My point: A woman that enjoyes herself sexually with a man will inadvertantly please him in the process. It's pretty easy for men to enjoy sex, so when a woman is enjoying herself, rather than just laying there motionless, it's sometimes like some sort of magic miracle. And any good man will actually put effort towards his woman's enjoyment. So make yourself available for his physical adoration, and more gold stars for you (or red, yellow, purple... depending on what you see when you... ya know...♥)
What started this whole rant you ask? Dr. Phil. I know I know... I hate Dr. Phil. But he had this couple on the show (titled Wifestyles) that's trying to make their relationship work. They've been married for 7 years, have 2 kids, and the smiles splayed across their faces are passively covering the fact that they simply do not get along. She's a bad cook. He's a chauvanist. She isn't properly performing the list of 75 wifely duties (which he listed for her) to his satisfaction. He refuses to wear his wedding ring. Now- the ring thing, that really gets me. And his explanation:
"I feel like there's some hard feelings between Kelly and I. Wearing that ring would be like condeding and saying 'It's ok, I'm not gonna worry about the problems we have,' so I'm not gonna do it right now."
Wearing his ring would be a concession. He agreed with the idea that he is basically punishing her for the fact that she sucks as a wife (as far as he is concerned), and when she gets her shit together, he'll put it back on and agree to publicly display the symbol of his commitment and love for his wife. But not until then.
I personally find that horrendous. He wants a cleaner, better maintained home, better meals, and a sexier partner, and she just wants him to approve of her. And she's trying. She's trying to take care of the kids and clean the house, and he tries not to complain about her imperfect cooking and decorating skills. I mean come on guy, didn't you know any of this about her before you got hitched? I really really do respect the idea that they're trying, because divorse is too easy a solution (which my family historically uses all the time), and the fact that they both want to change is proof that there is love there, but that doesn't stop me from wanting to kick his ass. It seems like if he would pitch in and do some of the things he wants her to do for him, she would be able to put more effort into pleasing him in the fashion to which he wants to be pleased.
Ugh. I don't know where this is even going anymore, but I'll say this: I have a lot of respect for couples that try everything they can think of to make their relationships work. I can apreciate their tenacity, and the fact that they do not consider their partners to be 'disposable'. And I have my own ideas of what I think contribute to making a relationship work, and if you haven't figured out what some of those are, well then how did you get this far? I'll simplify. Boys: be nice, tell her she's pretty (repeatedly and often), giver her kisses, and don't just listen- participate in conversation with her. Girls: Keep the place clean (just pickup his socks, don't nag him about it), cook some stuff he likes now and then, have sex the way you like to, and never immasculate him in public.
How's that sound? Good? Good. For those of you who'd like to fill out a 'boyfriend application', the line forms to the right. Don't be skurrd, I'll take good care of you.
*The full quote is "Men want a chef in the kitchen, a maid in the living room, and a whore in the bedroom... I can hire a chef and a maid and take care of the rest myself." But not everyone can hire a chef and a maid, and a mate that can cook for you is far sexier anyway.