The Ladies' Man: Taxonomical Distinctions

I recently watched The Perfect Husband (as part of my ongoing Tim Roth infatuation) and had some thoughts about different types of "Ladies' Men." The words below (Don Juan, Lothario, Casanova) are usually used as rough synonyms, but in my research I discovered entirely different emotional tones:

The Don Juan (or Lothario, if you prefer), is a serial womanizer - his career is built on a pattern of taking advantage of women's affections, generally leaving them in the lurch when the inevitable yearning for the next conquest begins. The Don Juan's focus is fundamentally on the use of (large numbers of) sexual conquests to prove his own masculinity and success as a man. (He's well-acquainted with a relentless internal monologue on the topic of his own inferiority as a man; more often than not, this inner voice is the voice of his father.) His lovers often live to regret their dalliances with him, particularly as Don Juans are master manipulators of feminine emotions and inclined to be irresponsible about such matters as discretion and birth control.

The Casanova is no seeker of self-aggrandizement; his goal is simply (and magnificently) 'salvation through love.' He genuinely loves women and enjoys their company; each of his affairs (and he has many - some brief, some extended, very often concurrent) is truly a love affair. Nevertheless, since no woman can replace her whose love really is capable of granting salvation - his mother, either in warm childhood memories or in wistful childhood imagination - each affair ends in its time, usually with care taken to minimize harm (emotional or social) to the woman. Casanova's affairs are subject to recurrence years or decades later, because he leaves behind him a warm affection that is easily rekindled.

Additional distinctions:

A Don Juan is preoccupied with his own manliness, so is prone to other manly excesses such as fighting, over-indulging in drink, etc. A Casanova prefers the company of women, since men have nothing to offer him in his quest, so eschews many traditional strongholds of masculinity; hunting and brawling have little appeal. In fact, the sexual orientation of a Casanova may, from time to time, be called into question for this reason.

For a Don Juan, sexual pleasure is of secondary concern, and is liable to get lost in the need to demonstrate sexual prowess; he's likely to be an aggressive and persistent (but not especially skilled or subtle) lover. A Casanova views sex as an expression of the (often short-term but still real) love between the parties, and is also likely to have made love with any number of older women in his youth; he's usually a skilled and sensitive lover, knowledgeable in the ways of pleasuring a woman.

Given his obsession with his own status, a Don Juan tends to pursue young women of great beauty, high social status, etc. ; naturally these affairs must become known by at least some, in order to serve their purpose as marks on the Don Juan's personal scorecard. A Casanova is minimally interested in social perceptions of his affairs, and indeed tends to be quite discreet; his lovers may vary considerably in age, personal beauty and social standing.

Anyone care to suggest some further distinctions or subtypes?

A newly discovered science blog:

This (from Adventures in Ethics and Science) makes me want to have children, immediately, right now. Although from what I hear, it takes a little while before they are old enough to converse at all intelligently about thermodynamics.

A very good, non-melodramatic MLK tribute:

Sand in the Gears' The Dividing Line:

I think people hated King because he spoke unsafely. He illuminated what Solzhenitsyn called the line dividing good and evil, the line that runs through every human heart. That is surely dangerous business. [...] I wonder where the prophets of this generation are. Where are the ones who will illuminate that line in every heart? It is so much easier to draw lines between people, between a virtuous Us and a nefarious Them, than to say: This is the evil we do, the evil I do.

The Jujitsu of Geek

Julian has an interesting post up about the different ways in which people can 'own' labels originally directed at them as insults. He differentiates between ironic acceptance ("See how little bothered we are by the petty schoolyard taunt you've tried to apply to us," applied in cases where there's no risk that the label will be interpreted as literally true) and defiant appropriation ("Damn right we are -- get used to it," applied as spin where the Label is factually true). As noted, insults like 'bigot' are unlikely to be adopted through either mechanism -- too sensitive for irony, too dangerous to admit in any context.

I'm wondering how 'geek-chic' fits into this paradigm. Some extremely hip technophiles have commandeered 'geek' in what seems to be an ironic way, but I suspect there's more to it. Possibilities:

Ironic: "I am so cool that your insult lacks all credibility, and is humorous."

Defiant: "Yes, I'm a geek, and will eventually have lots of money and hot women (or men). What was your insult, again?"

Pre-emptive: "I am worried that someone, someday might notice that I am a geek underneath my layers of cool, so I will say it first."

Conspicuous consumption: "I am so hip that I can afford the coolness-expense associated with being a geek, and still be more hip than you."

Countersignaling: "I have no need conceal my geek nature, because I am confident that you will eventually find out how cool I am."

Getting un-stuffed

Paul Graham has an enjoyable short essay up on stuff: why we accumulate it, why it's bad for us, what to do with it, etc. A couple choice bits:

Stuff has gotten a lot cheaper, but our attitudes toward it haven't changed correspondingly. We overvalue stuff.That was a big problem for me when I had no money. I felt poor, and stuff seemed valuable, so almost instinctively I accumulated it. [...]

I've now stopped accumulating stuff. [...] I'm not claiming this is because I've achieved some kind of zenlike detachment from material things. I'm talking about something more mundane. A historical change has taken place, and I've now realized it. Stuff used to be valuable, and now it's not.

In industrialized countries the same thing happened with food in the middle of the twentieth century. As food got cheaper (or we got richer; they're indistinguishable), eating too much started to be a bigger danger than eating too little. We've now reached that point with stuff.

This is true, obviously, but hard to implement. Back when postmodernism was cool, Don DeLillo wrote this about shopping:

I shopped with reckless abandon. I shopped for immediate needs and distant contingencies. I shopped for its own sake, looking and touching, inspecting merchandise I had no intention of buying, then buying it. I sent clerks into their fabric books and pattern books to search for elusive designs. I began to grow in value and self-regard. I filled myself out, found new aspects of myself, located a person I'd forgotten existed. [...] The more money I spent, the less important it seemed. I was bigger than these sums. These sums poured off my skin like so much rain. These sums in fact came back to me in the form of existential credit. I felt expansive...

(For the full passage, which is exquisite, go here. Or better yet, read the book.)

I myself have moved almost once a year since leaving home for college, which is an excellent way to avoid accumulating stuff. Some other, less disruptive ways to get rid of stuff:

• Yard/garage sales -- for those with way too much random stuff, accumulated by living too long in the same house.



• Ebay, for valuable and/or easily shipped stuff, and craigslist, for stuff that is marginally valuable, or is easiest to sell locally.



• Salvation Army, Goodwill, Vietnam Veterans of America -- for large items and large amounts of stuff that need to be picked up.



• Freecycle -- for individual items that aren't quite valuable enough to sell, but still might be useful to someone, somewhere.