Steve Harvey Got Things Confused Pt. 1 (CCL #14)

Personally, I will be the first to admit: Steve Harvey’s first relationship book Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man is quite entertaining. Through his endearing conversations, personal anecdotes, and understanding of life, Harvey came up with a nice book. He uses common sense to explain certain situations dealing with men. Also, he uses simple moments of logic to drive home certain premises that some already value. With that said, Harvey constructed a book that may be worthy of mass consumption. 

Yet, this does not mean anything.   That book may be considered “general wisdom”. I conclude that the book was quite the contrary. 

There are two main issues that need to be ratified before I even get into the first chocolate covered lie. 

The first issue I have with this book is that it is a tome relegated to the manipulation of the male species. It is one thing to work to empower women to gain the most of their relationships. It is another matter to try to have females come up with clever, skillful, or devious ways to get men to comply with their wishes. Those two things are not one and the same. Relationships are not something that should be based on getting people to do your bidding. In turn, it seems as if this book is somewhere suitable to how-to-train pets rather than relating to men. 

The second issue deals with the fact that the book uses plenty of opinions and no hardcore facts. I am not trying to discount any of Steve Harvey’s experiences whatsoever. Yet, I do find it troubling that NO concrete knowledge being used. Using relatable relationship experiences is fine. But, using those solitary experiences (like the comparison between a “90 Day Rule” and 90 days working before you get benefits. Really, Steve? [1]) are not enough. In the end, Not having worthwhile research will be a continual contrary argument point.

This leads me to the first chocolate covered lie dedicated to a singular manuscript: it is okay for women to relegate their “cookie” as something that is earned. 

Of all of the ideas within this book, this has to be the worst. Let me break this short sighted malarkey to its very last compound. 

For one, refining and defining oneself as something “that should be earned” only leads to one thing: self-objectification. Imannuel Kant, the German philosopher, characteristically wrote this in his Lectures on Ethics:

 “…sexual love makes of the loved person an Object of appetite; as soon as that appetite has been stilled, the person is cast aside as one casts away a lemon which has been sucked dry. … as soon as a person becomes an Object of appetite for another, all motives of moral relationship cease to function, because as an Object of appetite for another a person becomes a thing and can be treated and used as such by everyone.” [2]

Let me break this down for you: once that man sees you as an object to feed his hunger, to satiate his thirst, then that only makes you no more than a $5 Foot long or a bottle of Gatorade. Sure, you will hit the spot. Yes, you will serve a purpose. However, will this purpose be of “a regal, dedicated woman” or a “piece of ass”? 

            Another issue that I have with this mentality is that it actually mishandles the understanding of male sexuality. Dr. Helen Fisher, the anthropology professor and human behavior researcher at Rutgers University, had this to say:

“Sex is more intimate to men than it is to women. Intimacy to women is talking…men tend to get intimacy from doing things side by side, together. Sex is really a gift that women give to men. Men see it as that and the actual sex act is very intimate for men.” [3]

So, on average, women are the ones that will always want to intimately talk. Meanwhile, your men will be intimate through doing things together (including sex). Consequently, Harvey’s book missed the mark when it came to fully understanding a male’s expression of intimacy. 

            Do not get things mixed up: men do love sex. We feel that it is an important part of a working relationship. Also, we enjoy the release that it gives us and the health benefits that come along with it. Plus, we think sex is GREAT! So, Steve Harvey is right when he notes that “if you mess around and start shelling out the cookie in crumbs, it’s going to be a problem.” [4]

            But, sex is our main goal if we are trying to have sex and have sex only. In relationships, sex is an expression of intimacy.

            Let us have another honest look at things: how can any woman honestly be okay with objectifying themselves in that manner? True, women should want be desired by a man of their choice. Yes, that man should want you. Yet, understand that sex is just the side dish to the meal that is a relationship. Without it, it can be incomplete; having sex with no worthwhile relationship will REALLY leave your man on an empty stomach. 

            In the end, Steve Harvey’s first mistake was built around good intentions. He wants women to understand a male’s sexual desires. Yet, those sexual desires unequivocally leave men being demoted to that of a hormonal, instinctual beast. Sex should NEVER be a goal in a relationship. Sex is a goal of those looking for whores, one-night-stands, and the club-happy undesirables. Relationships are built around expressions of love, trust, and intimacy. Therefore, Steve Harvey missed the mark. 

            Oh, and this won’t be the last chocolate covered lie to come from this book. Just you all wait.  Shout out to the Cookie Monster.

            ‘Nuff said and ‘nuff respect!

           

[1] Harvey, S. (2009). Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man. HarperCollins, New York, NY.

[2] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-objectification/

[3] http://manofthehouse.com/relationships/sex/dr-helen-fisher-intimacy-between-men-and-women

[4] Harvey, S. (2009). Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man. HarperCollins, New York, NY.