Clooney's Choice

Another week brings us another celebrity couple's split to ponder.

This week, it's the announced breakup between George Clooney and the impossibly hot, Italian model-actress-broadcaster and now ex-girlfriend, Elisabetta Canalis.

Elisabetta Canalis certainly is marriage material for at least one guy out there. Okay, many millions of guys. But unfortunately, it did not work out for her in this instance, with this particular guy. This happens in love and life. Most of us have to endure a painful breakup (except for my lucky parents who married after high school 43 happy years ago, those crazy kids).

Of course, we would never declare Elisabeth Canalis to be unmarriagable. Yet some women have taken this opportunity to label George Clooney an irredeemable commitment-phobe, a cad, and a infection or syndrome to be avoided.

Ladies, they caution, stay away from "the George Clooney type" or the "Peter Pan type." Here is Melissa Chapman at BettyConfidential pointly warning women:

"These George Clooney guys will never be the ones who stand in line at CVS and buy you maxi pads, they'll never cook you chicken soup and feed it to you when you feel like your head may explode, and they’ll never sit in a car with your mother and take her to her doctor's appointment."
This characterization is innacurate, especially in the use of the word "never" above. It's an incorrect judgment about George Clooney himself, and it's an incorrect pre-judgment to apply to any man.

I want to tell all the single ladies one thing: There is no such thing as a commitment-phobic man. All men are capable of commitment. Every man has the capacity to "put a ring on it," to quote Beyonce.

The pre-judging of men as commitment-phobic strikes me as just as crass and shortsighted as when a man labels a woman as being "frigid," incapable of physical intimacy. Imagine a locker room conversation between two dudes: "Don't date that chick. She won't put out." That bit of crass pre-judgment must grate on female ears. Not only is it mean and shortsighted, it's just plain wrong.

No woman is "frigid." No woman can be pre-judged as being incapable of physical intimacy. A woman who is labeled as frigid is simply being discriminating in who she dates. She is exercising her right to decide when, where and who she will become intimate with. The man who labels a woman "frigid" is simply frustrated because he can't be the one to seduce her. He speaks from his own insecurity, not from an accurate assessment of her inherent capability for physical intimacy.

Sex and commitment are voluntary. A woman certainly does not "owe" sex to a man. She decides when and where and to whom to intimate with, and a man does not "owe" commitment to a woman. He decides when and where and to whom to commit to.

Chapman further describes the George Clooney type: "A guy who can both literally and figuratively, 'Charm the pants off of you,' thanks to his intense masculinity, power, and of course, his all-around affability. It is almost impossible to avoid getting sucked in by his magnetic aura, even though he never gives you a firm commitment."

There's the word "never" again. Chapman counsels women to stay away from charming, masculine, seductive men. This is bad advice. All of us, men and women, need to pursue and date people who thrill us. If we refuse to date the people who we find attractive and exciting, then what's the point? Life is too short not to play the game of romance.

Elisabetta Canalis did nothing wrong in dating a guy who she found exciting and seductive, a "George Clooney type," and in this instance, Mr. Clooney himself. She gave romance a try with a guy she really liked and it did not work out. That's all.

This fact of life does not render George Clooney a syndrome to be avoided by women. Women who obsess about avoiding "George Clooney" will miss out on the thrill when they finally convince a exciting, seductive, masculine man to put a ring on it. It happens every day.

To all the single ladies: don't miss out on courtship and romance. Play the game!