Not unusual, by any yardstick.
What disappointed me in the case though, is that I did it twice in quick succession, once online, and then (not having lerned anything from that episode), repeated my mistake in real life.
So I am full of mea culpas as I take a step back and retract my words...
Or rather (hello Hamster!), I rearrange my words to reflect better what I really meant to say :-)
Hahahaha, I know exactly what someone here (mentioning no names) would say to my little hamsterisation exercise :-)
I said once that women civilise men. Whilst that sounds amazingly inflammatory to my now educated ears, I think it is worth explaining where I was coming from.
In a woman's world (to which I wholeheartedly belong even if I like to distance myself from the seedier aspects of Planet Feminine), I have to say that every man is viewed like this (below), due to some programming in the recesses of the female brain:
No matter if he is your father, brother, boyfriend, husband, the guy in the motorbike repair shop, the doctor in the nearest paediatric department, your cousin twice removed or the pizza deliverer.
Every man looks like this in our minds.
But this is not necessarily a bad thing, lol.
This image is quite enticing if Mr. Caveman happens to be to our liking.
I know, little comfort to the unwanted cavemen out there.
What can I say, I sympathise.
Because women instinctively see men as somehow raw, or unrefined (and believe me, this property of masculinity is one that women are naturally programmed to respond to, and are therefore drawn to, which is why 'jerk' or 'A-hole' Game seems to work so well on women who operate in terre-à-terre mode - sorry, I just cannot translate this phrase - it conveys so much of the meaning I actually intend when left in French), there is a uniquely feminine drive to refine men - i.e. shape them to our liking, and more importantly, to make men useful or profitable in some way, to us.
Hold your horses! It's not as bad as it sounds!
Now, this system works very well, if:
1) The man is aware of this need in a woman, but is able to circumnavigate it in a way that he chooses. He takes things in his stride. He lets her 'use' him, when it pleases him, and is firm when he knows she is at or close to his personal boundary. In other words, he is an alpha who is able to dodge or simply refuse to respond to ALL of her 'fitness tests'. This is also good for the woman, because she sees him as 'strong' (necessary for her attraction to him, and in many ways is a way for her to be civilised by him - see below). It is a two-way street which works beautifully when both parties do their part and are in sync.
2) The woman actually has good intenetions towards said man. She needs to influence him in some way such that he provides and protects her (and any small people that pop up from nowhere :-) but at the same time she also realises that there are certain needs of his which MUST be catered for. It is not all about her. Ditto as in 1) above.
3) She is selective about who she plays this game with. She does not feel entitled to use all the men she encounters in this way. If 3) is the case, then 2) cannot be true of her.
Selectivity is an important aspect of this dynamic.
My mistake was the use of the word 'civilise'.
Having drawn you a picture of how women view men (from a psycho-social standpoint only, I have to swiftly add!), you can see (I hope) why I use the word 'civilse', no?
Tarzan and Conan the Barbarian are in serious need of civilising, no?
But alas, I show my ignorance of the wider world view.
I have come now to understand that the word I was looking for was 'socialise'.
I often trip up on words even though I love the field of philology. My usual excuse is that I am polylingual and direct translations from one language to another do not always work and I end up saying something I did not mean.
But there is no excuse for this howler!
Which is why I come on bended knee (figuratively speaking). Hence the mea culpas.
This mistake was borne out of ignorance, and I am glad I have learned this.
The only influence a woman need have on a man is one on a social scale.
This is one advantage women have over men. We are much more social creatures than men, even the most extrovert of men.
This is why, (despite the headache that comes with having a woman around! - hey, I understand your pain :-), men who have women around them are more socially involved (in general) than not. They thrive better in 'society'.
Politicians know this very well, for example.
Yes, groups of men have fun on their own - true enough.
But whatever it is, it could be socially 'improved', I think, by the presence of women (and I am not referring to the sexual sense at all). OK, it is better to have no woman around at all, than an unpleasant one, but let's stick to normal, pleasant, feminine women just for this post.
Groups of women can happily socialise all day without a man present. Women will socialise with whoever is around, until oblivion arrives :-)
This is one area where women really do not require a man's presence. Social interaction comes naturally to most women, even the shy/quiet/introverted ones. Rarely is a woman born without this 'switch', and rarer still is this switch never turned on at some time around puberty.
What women absolutely need from a man, though, is civilisation.
Women can easily go feral without the 'control' of a man, or men.
And I know I will get shot for this, but it is an observation that anyone who has eyes to see, has got to have made at some point in their life!
Men may look 'unsocial' and 'unrefined' to female eyes, but most men are born with the 'civilisation' switch which replaces the 'social' switch in women.
And, like in women, this switch gets turned on fully, when boys become men. But one can definitely see traces of this even in young boys...
The reason why women 'own' society is precisely because we hold the social key in life.
It is why in the SMP, a man's 'black and white' life can be made 'colourful' by a woman.
The reason men 'own' civilisation is due to their own unique traits which make them prone to building and creating the Framework for civilisation.
It is why women who 'break free' of men don't do well in life, and become caricatures of failed humanity. (I say this with regret, but it is nonetheless true).
It really is that simple when seen from a neutral standpoint with no emotional overlay.
And... it helps to get the terminology right.
My specific thanks to the man in real life who took offense at my mistake and corrected my language when it comes to this topic.
It is, I think, an important point to have smoothed out in my mind.
It means I get to correctly see men and women as they should be viewed, each with unique, but different and complementing strengths.
For it takes diferent skills to civilise, as it takes to socialise.
For the world to function correctly, both aspects of human life are needed.
No shame in having more of one than the other, or none of one and all of the other.