Life+Stuff: The boy room

My friend Tennille shared a very interesting theory with me yesterday: The Boy Room.

The boy room

This is probably some ancient evolutionary survival lobe that lights up around stone arrow heads but for the purposes of this exercise, let’s assume it goes all Christmas lights over hot tradies.

This theory states that in every woman’s brain, there is a room reserved for boys. When we get dumped, heartbroken or otherwise rejected and this room vacates, our brain freaks out a bit and we frantically start trying to find a new tenant. Psychoimmunoneurologists would call that ‘endorphins’, ‘dopamine’ and ‘oxytocin’. I am calling it The Boy Room.

It’s a little bit like when one of your flatmates moves out when you’re at uni. The rent is a delicately balanced financial structure that leaves just enough money left over for schooners and Chateau cardboard. While you’re covering the absentee’s rent, your social life goes to sh*t because you can’t even afford tins of tuna. Cue: sorrow.

My friend Jess also has a theory. It may not be especially feminist but I totally agree with it. It’s that women need an object of affection to be happy. It could be a hot barista, your husband, your friend’s brother. Doesn’t matter. We just need to have the hots for someone.

Is this total madness? Should women be able to be happy without a bloke (or chick – whatever works). Should we renovate that room in our brain or is it a biological necessity?

 

 

Comments
6 Responses to “Life+Stuff: The boy room”
  1. mel says:

    I think both those things may be true – for some people. I have neither the boy room or need for an object of affection (unless you count my cat), but I do know some people (ahem) who do.

    To paraphrase one memorable shitty song from the 90s, “If everyone worked the same, we’d get tired of hanging with each other…”

  2. I am sure that the Boy Room exists. But I think boys have Girl Rooms too (but there is more sex happening in their rooms). We are social animals, and we need to pair-bond. The difference is whether we can have an object of affection at a distance – a crush, as it were – and be satisfied. Or if we need the dude snuggled up to us on the lounge every day. I think if we can get away without *needing* a full-on relationship, all the time, we become stronger individuals.

  3. Natureboy says:

    I generally agree with both of the above comments, though I disagree about guys having more sex in theirs.

    To me it seems that some people don’t work well without another. Maybe we could call it the ‘Other Room’, or the ‘Ahhhh Room’. A ‘Lovers Room’? Who knows.

    And just like Mel says, it’s important to have differences in people, and also to know what you need.

    I know that I don’t work as well without a partner, though those few months late last year were good for me.

    This is well put Em. xx

  4. Bird says:

    It’s just an evolutionary construct. We are hard-wired to pair-bond for food, shelter, safety, and procreation. Your hormones drive these inclinations. They are hard to over-ride.

    Being on your own gets easier as you get older, though. This may be a result of hormonal changes associated with ageing.

  5. Lisa T says:

    Hmm, I disagree…I neither want it nor miss it! Happiness is travel and a kitchen renovation… 😉 x

  6. Meagan says:

    I say be your own object of affection (not in a narcissistic way) – love yourself and the life you lead and then anyone one that fits in with it is a bonus. It’s like sharing that room… only rent a house you can afford to pay on your own… if someone sublets – enjoy it and save but be able to cope on your own and be happy should they move on 🙂 #mytwocents

Leave A Comment