Seats? Selfishness? Or self-determination?

The other day my friend (let's call him Billy) told me how he and his wife (let's call her Buffy) got into an argument about sports. To qualify, they are both college football fanatics. They didn't argue about which team would win; they didn't argue about the strength of this offense or that defense; and not even about his propensity to gamble on the games. No, Billy and Buffy locked horns on where to sit.

This seemed odd to me. Of all the things men and women have fought about regarding sports, seats, for me, was a first. They agreed on the importance of being at the stadium for the game. They also agreed they would spend $X on the seats. All good so far. He then explained that he wanted to sit in club level -- where a fully stocked bar would be at the ready -- instead of their usual 50-yd-line seats. Billy reasoned that because it would be a championship game, it might be nice to enjoy it with a few cocktails.

The two of them have been to countless regular-season games together. They have tailgated. They have crisscrossed the nation as superfans. For 20+ years they have lauded the successes and denounced the defeats of said team. But Billy's suggestion on seats caused a huge uproar.

Needless to say, Buffy's argument confounded Billy. "Why do you need to be near the bar?" she asked. "We are already going to be tailgating before the game. We are supposed to be at the stadium to watch the game, not get stumbling drunk."

To me, this is an interesting bit of interaction. Let me preempt the obvious argument. This post is not about drinking or getting drunk during sporting events. We've all witnessed punch-drunk idiots dribble and wobble their way through stunning victories and harrowing defeats.  It is not big. It is not clever.
 

What's interesting to me is that the importance of having a choice seemed to be lost on Buffy. Billy was the first to admit that he may have 5 drinks or no drinks during the game. The amount is not the point.

The point is that if it is available (NCAA games do not have beer vendors) to Billy, he'd like to be able to exercise a shred of self-determination. He'd like to be able to decide, on the spot, if he's in the mood for a beer at that particular point in time.

I guess I don't understand Buffy's logic in this case. Perhaps she's worried Billy will drink too much at the game. I guess I see that. But surely if Billy thinks he won't have access to beer during the game, that would encourage him to binge during pre-game festivities. Right or wrong?

Conversely, he would be more likely to pace himself and drink responsibly if he knows the nearest watering hole is a mere stones throw from his seat. Si o no?    

Maybe I'm missing something. Actually, I am sure I'm missing something. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons Buffy drew her line in the sand. This post, however, is not about drinking. It is about autonomy. Never underestimate the importance of a man feeling like he has a choice; feeling like he has some say over what he does and where he goes.

Men don't always want their way. That is selfishness. That is egotistical. That is for another post. What we do want though is to feel like we are being heard and that our feelings are being considered. Men hate like poison the condescension that comes with being told what to do.

Thoreau has it right. Self-determination is not about selfishness, it is about confidence. Men and women of the blogosphere, we can all agree, none of us want to feel small or patronized. We are not cattle. Rather than leading each other around with a rope and a ring in the nose, let's try this: Empower one another to make thoughtful decisions and once those decisions are made, trust each other.

As always, let me know how it works out. JR