How much of an immediate turn-off is hearing that the person you might be mildly interested in is going to visit with their ex?
Far too often, our almost-significant others make plans with those that they no longer say "Love" to and (hopefully) aren't continuing to fuck. While the idea of staying in conversational relationships with our exes is considered healthy, one can't help but wonder how often that wondering turns to worrying.
Why does the idea of the ex always include some sex?
While women intrinsically are prone to substantiate platonic yet deep relationships, men tend to be able to dick and ditch; cutting ties before, during and after any kind of sexual activity with another person. While not every man is a slave to his willie, going to visit someone that made that willie feel great is not a happy thought.
In the thought of sex with the ex, when does coming around to friendship actually involve a lack of coming?
I'm from the school of thought that the ex is NOT part of my life, at least for the first couple years post-breakup. If we didn't work out, you need to not exist until I've gotten over you by getting under someone else. If I'm to believe you're 100% interested in me and only my ass (and other choice body parts), then any rumination on that other person who used to be in your life should be either complete ambivalence or a "wow...that was a mistake from the past".
Many, many times have I found a total lack of interest in someone I'm just starting to date as soon as I even hear the word "ex". Rules that aren't made to be broken, break and I'd rather not chance that.
However, there's also the school of thought that a shared interest in the ex could lead to better times in bed, a la Britney Spears' latest dance floor mantra "3". Why just you and me when there can be three? Or four?
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Tale of a Tease
After a games night with friends that lasted until 4AM, I had a coffee conversation with the newly-crowned Twister winner, D., regarding the power of a tease.
We've both been successfully bothered by individuals time and again that have this ability to twist our interests yet give no substantial evidence of having expressed anything other than comradery to begin with.
Why get us hot and bothered but leave us cooling our heels at the last moment?
Maybe it stems from the notion of pleasure delay. When something feels so good that you don't want it to stop, you delay the climax, if you will, to prolongate the pleasure. And if you happen to be the one controlling the amount of pleasure, that's an infinite amount of power and pain you can inflict upon someone else.
Are relationships so boring that psychological warfare are the new plays for affection?
Look at the need to please. You honestly want that other person to want you. Your role is make that other person feel good. But teasing is the whole "look but don't touch" mentality, which throws the art of affection into affliction.
When did Edith Wharton's novels of social manners explode inside of a strip club?
Questions I keep asking myself as I tiptoe through the minefields of prospective dates. I start to show an interest in someone and the flirtatious behavior runs from hot to disinterest in the matter of an hour. Granted, it transforms into a challenge, which everyone knows I love, but what's the motivation behind wanting the person who you don't know wants you?
I wonder if it fulfills the need to feel satisfied, i.e. you want what you can't have and you get rewarded when you do get it.
We've both been successfully bothered by individuals time and again that have this ability to twist our interests yet give no substantial evidence of having expressed anything other than comradery to begin with.
Why get us hot and bothered but leave us cooling our heels at the last moment?
Maybe it stems from the notion of pleasure delay. When something feels so good that you don't want it to stop, you delay the climax, if you will, to prolongate the pleasure. And if you happen to be the one controlling the amount of pleasure, that's an infinite amount of power and pain you can inflict upon someone else.
Are relationships so boring that psychological warfare are the new plays for affection?
Look at the need to please. You honestly want that other person to want you. Your role is make that other person feel good. But teasing is the whole "look but don't touch" mentality, which throws the art of affection into affliction.
When did Edith Wharton's novels of social manners explode inside of a strip club?
Questions I keep asking myself as I tiptoe through the minefields of prospective dates. I start to show an interest in someone and the flirtatious behavior runs from hot to disinterest in the matter of an hour. Granted, it transforms into a challenge, which everyone knows I love, but what's the motivation behind wanting the person who you don't know wants you?
I wonder if it fulfills the need to feel satisfied, i.e. you want what you can't have and you get rewarded when you do get it.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Trouser Snake Hunt
Sitting down to a nice vodka tonic last weekend, a friend of mine, G., casually remarked that another friend of ours seems accidentally single. Obviously playing into the conversation, I asked G. why he thought said friend wasn't. His reply struck as something I've been having difficulty with the past few years.
"His relationships never run long. Maybe he doesn't have a big you-know-what."
Really? Because I was under the assumption that a relationship was about the trust and value you place in the the person you've decided to exclusively share orgasms with.
And yet there's a grain of truth, sociologically, to G.'s off-colour reason.
Everyone's heard of size queens. These are straight women and gay men who exclusively search for that trouser snake/annaconda, that mythological member that can conquer kingdoms, countries and cunts (sorry for the poor choice of vaginal wording). They get a sense of fulfillment (no puns intended...okay...maybe a little) from having this extra lump of genitalia at their disposal.
But have we become so supersized in life that even what a man's packing has to be biggie-sized?
Maybe it has to do with the confidence a well-endowed male has, that a not-so-muched guy has less of. It definitely helps your interpersonal dynamic in the relationship if you have the confidence that doesn't constantly seek validation from the other. I know many a man without such generous a package that say it IS a concern when they approach other women or men sexually.
The average penis erect is 5 3/4" long. I remember the days when 7" was considered big. Now, far too many ladies and gents do not bat an eye at 8.5" or 9". As far as I know, there aren't that many bigger than 7". My fair shair of seeing the one-eyed eel in its various habitats and moods only advocates my stance.
When is love (of the less-than-8" pecker) not enough?
I was always happy with an above-average manhood. I even like his siblings, testicle 1 and 2. But it makes me not feel as virile if I'm constantly being bombarded by sources (like an Aussie Bum underwear ad) that say the really attractive man is going to get laid not just for his pretty mug but for his plug.
I certainly don't see WOMEN compairing their clitorises (clitori?). For them, it's less of a non-issue who has a bigger one. Even my lesbians tell me that they laugh when a man is boastful of a foul-looking organ that happens to be the same length as my foot ( I wear an 11 US). And it IS laughable that a successful male, with a beautiful face and worked out body, a healthy and long-lived life ahead of him, can get reduced to disinteresting based on an average penis.
Personally, I think it would be more impressive to have a CLEAN, disease-free and AVERAGE penis than one 10" long and around with boils and far-too-prominent pores. But again, this is coming from me. I wouldn't want a small mini-sized one either.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Strings Attached
Had an interesting discussion with a close male friend, W., this afternoon post-French Toast.
He brought up the idea of sex, or the sexual situation, as a way to continue a friendship but not a consummate relationship.
"Sex between friends can be kind of casual. Like a handshake," he said as we walked back to our respective work places on the same SF block.
This discussion stemmed from my accidental trip to sex-ville sometime before with a mutual friend of W.'s and mine. Turns out that a night fueled by liquor and dance music and tight jeans can create a conducive environment to get my whore on. W. was on hand to observe the flirtations down to the tequila-tinged tongues were massaging each other.
But is it true; can you really be friends with someone whose cum-face you've seen?
W. pointed out that every single one of our friends has, at one point or another (accidentally revolving around me) had or were the result of physical attraction with one another. So when the opportunity passes to spark a dating/schtupping relationship, it typically segways into a nice easy friendship with casual remarked-upon attraction.
Yet my problem is that many of my friends are vocal about falling for the people they sleep with, even if it's a mutually casual situation. And said slept-with friend is guilty of doing such. Will said friend not want to remain friends is the issue at hand, despite knowing that I'm not looking to date.
Is our society becoming emotionally attached to the no-strings-attached rule?
Further analysis by W. led to a conversation based on the faith that friendships are easier to deal with than dating relationships. Sex, according to him, can be therapeutic but at the same time seen as a nuance of the "friend" role. Other male friends, once asked about this subject, agreed.
Apparently the post-modern version of BFF includes BJs.
So you, the reader, is probably wondering if maybe I have issues in terms of space and relationship boundaries. Well, yeah!
I don't judge (harshly), but I'm all for keeping that distinction between "fuck" and "buddy".
He brought up the idea of sex, or the sexual situation, as a way to continue a friendship but not a consummate relationship.
"Sex between friends can be kind of casual. Like a handshake," he said as we walked back to our respective work places on the same SF block.
This discussion stemmed from my accidental trip to sex-ville sometime before with a mutual friend of W.'s and mine. Turns out that a night fueled by liquor and dance music and tight jeans can create a conducive environment to get my whore on. W. was on hand to observe the flirtations down to the tequila-tinged tongues were massaging each other.
But is it true; can you really be friends with someone whose cum-face you've seen?
W. pointed out that every single one of our friends has, at one point or another (accidentally revolving around me) had or were the result of physical attraction with one another. So when the opportunity passes to spark a dating/schtupping relationship, it typically segways into a nice easy friendship with casual remarked-upon attraction.
Yet my problem is that many of my friends are vocal about falling for the people they sleep with, even if it's a mutually casual situation. And said slept-with friend is guilty of doing such. Will said friend not want to remain friends is the issue at hand, despite knowing that I'm not looking to date.
Is our society becoming emotionally attached to the no-strings-attached rule?
Further analysis by W. led to a conversation based on the faith that friendships are easier to deal with than dating relationships. Sex, according to him, can be therapeutic but at the same time seen as a nuance of the "friend" role. Other male friends, once asked about this subject, agreed.
Apparently the post-modern version of BFF includes BJs.
So you, the reader, is probably wondering if maybe I have issues in terms of space and relationship boundaries. Well, yeah!
I don't judge (harshly), but I'm all for keeping that distinction between "fuck" and "buddy".
The Romantic Egoist
'Scuse the title stealing, Mr. Fitzgerald. But honestly, you hit the proverbial nail on the head even back in the 1920s, which proves we really don't learn anything when it comes to love.
Look at the subject words: "romantic" and "egoist". Granted, most people feel love is selfless and all-encompassing, blah blah. It's only 50% correct. Love is always in relation to the "I" and "me". Love isn't felt BY someone else for them from you. It's nothing more than YOUR perspective about the chemical reactions warp speeding through your veins and squishy parts.
Why do we assume love ISN'T about ourselves?
Let's start off with the act of falling in love. There isn't any real "falling", as you tend to feel positive and "up" and "high"; obviously there's something that's keeping you emotionally far from the ground, no? Moving on, it's how WE feel about that other person. Perspective really creates interest, and unless you're aware of YOUR interest in this object of quivering affection, there ain't gonna be any!
Let's say things go off swimmingly between you and said person. The relationship develops and your significant other has accepted you (maybe not as YOU you, but definitely as you). See? It's about YOU. Not to undermine the importance of the other person, we get the sense of the "I" in the relationship through this fella/gal. Do you see where I'm getting at?
We claim and swear heaven up and down that the act of love is about the "we" or the "you".
Pffft.
There is no "we" or "you" in the relationship-sense if the "I" is being dragged kicking and screaming bloody hell.
The "I" has to become infatuated with the idea that there is another "I" out there (the "you") that likes (allegedly) you as much as you do! Think about it; a relationship, especially a romantic one, requires an appeasement of the "I", that lofty dictator of your loins, to say "I do."
So if the "I" is most important, then isn't the relationship just emotional masturbation?
I offer different case in points from various people. A friend we'll call G has been in a relationship for steadily upwards of a year. This relationship has been expontentially growing sour yet the two remain together. All the discussion is about the sacrifices each makes to sustain the relationship. There's never any discussion about the "I" in the "we". The "me" is neglected and it in both of them isn't happy.
Another friend whom I've mentioned before, JD, has a different situation: his "I" is properly satisfied, but feels there is always something MORE, thus his relationships do not end up fulfilled.
Yet, opposite spectrum, a brilliant brunette buddy by the name of S has been devoted to her boyfriend for almost four years. She's is challenged and stimulated by his attention on her, and in return she shines light on his "you". When they argue, they explicitly give voice to the "I" and the "me" in regards to the "we". A mutual understanding is reached and the relationship progresses into the deeper (hell of) love. Works out perfectly.
I'm not going to mention myself. There's FAR FAR too much lack of clarity there. The "you" doesn't know how to make a decision regarding the future of "we" and the "me" has a lack of focus, resulting in a "we" that spins in limbo like a perpetual hubcap.
Who knows, maybe people that can't find love have a problem with the "I" and "me"? If "I" can't be happy, why should "we"?
In the end, the act of love is an egotistical action that produces a chain reaction of positive emotions. Having that "we" makes the "I" the center of the human experience. Love's definitely a subject worth prattling on about.
At least it's sorting ends or pieces for "me".
Look at the subject words: "romantic" and "egoist". Granted, most people feel love is selfless and all-encompassing, blah blah. It's only 50% correct. Love is always in relation to the "I" and "me". Love isn't felt BY someone else for them from you. It's nothing more than YOUR perspective about the chemical reactions warp speeding through your veins and squishy parts.
Why do we assume love ISN'T about ourselves?
Let's start off with the act of falling in love. There isn't any real "falling", as you tend to feel positive and "up" and "high"; obviously there's something that's keeping you emotionally far from the ground, no? Moving on, it's how WE feel about that other person. Perspective really creates interest, and unless you're aware of YOUR interest in this object of quivering affection, there ain't gonna be any!
Let's say things go off swimmingly between you and said person. The relationship develops and your significant other has accepted you (maybe not as YOU you, but definitely as you). See? It's about YOU. Not to undermine the importance of the other person, we get the sense of the "I" in the relationship through this fella/gal. Do you see where I'm getting at?
We claim and swear heaven up and down that the act of love is about the "we" or the "you".
Pffft.
There is no "we" or "you" in the relationship-sense if the "I" is being dragged kicking and screaming bloody hell.
The "I" has to become infatuated with the idea that there is another "I" out there (the "you") that likes (allegedly) you as much as you do! Think about it; a relationship, especially a romantic one, requires an appeasement of the "I", that lofty dictator of your loins, to say "I do."
So if the "I" is most important, then isn't the relationship just emotional masturbation?
I offer different case in points from various people. A friend we'll call G has been in a relationship for steadily upwards of a year. This relationship has been expontentially growing sour yet the two remain together. All the discussion is about the sacrifices each makes to sustain the relationship. There's never any discussion about the "I" in the "we". The "me" is neglected and it in both of them isn't happy.
Another friend whom I've mentioned before, JD, has a different situation: his "I" is properly satisfied, but feels there is always something MORE, thus his relationships do not end up fulfilled.
Yet, opposite spectrum, a brilliant brunette buddy by the name of S has been devoted to her boyfriend for almost four years. She's is challenged and stimulated by his attention on her, and in return she shines light on his "you". When they argue, they explicitly give voice to the "I" and the "me" in regards to the "we". A mutual understanding is reached and the relationship progresses into the deeper (hell of) love. Works out perfectly.
I'm not going to mention myself. There's FAR FAR too much lack of clarity there. The "you" doesn't know how to make a decision regarding the future of "we" and the "me" has a lack of focus, resulting in a "we" that spins in limbo like a perpetual hubcap.
Who knows, maybe people that can't find love have a problem with the "I" and "me"? If "I" can't be happy, why should "we"?
In the end, the act of love is an egotistical action that produces a chain reaction of positive emotions. Having that "we" makes the "I" the center of the human experience. Love's definitely a subject worth prattling on about.
At least it's sorting ends or pieces for "me".
The Perfect Lie: Use Mouthwash
Silly little bag of hormones and bones, I know your secret.
Okay, so maybe not literally your secret, but I do know that you (yes, I'm guilty too) take the time to lie to those you are attracted to. Again, not literally, but think a bit more...physically.
Five out of nine people (males included) colour their hair a different shade, be it with highlights, lowlights, or an all-over difference. More than half of those people alter their skin tone by using bronzers/spraytans, sun exposure, or even bleaching of skin (hello Michael Jackson territory). Eye glasses have become passe, and contacts are now available in an array of colours. Seven of ten people ages 21-31 take vitamin supplements that promote beautiful skin and body function.
The point is, you aren't you. You are the perfect, perpetual lie. I'm a prime example of that. First off, I'm naturally blonde and from Eastern Europe where sun exposure really doesn't occur due to temperatures that require clothing. I don't even remember what shade of blonde I really am. My body also naturally wants to be 20 lbs heavier than it is now, or so my nutritionist I adore (but secretly hate) says.
Yet look at me: I've been a raven-haired brunette for upwards of two years, I exercise almost to the point of religion to maintain my build, I brush my teeth with a whitening toothpaste, and twice a week, I go outside with the intent of bronzing my formerly alabastar skin.
Humans, especially those of us tightly tuned into what the media says, chose to alter our appearances in order to look "better" for the opposite/same sex. It's perfectly natural...er...UNnatural, if you look at it/us. Natural selection states that the organism with the highest probability of producing viable offspring will have the higher probability of getting a mate. Humans have the power (technology/science) to alter their appearances to what people in power (the media) agree as attractive, otherwise known as potentially producing viable offspring.
To the standard 20something Californian, smooth bronzy skin, shiny hair, no sense impediment(s), and Jessica Simpson-esque teeth (I'll skip tits and ass for argument's sake) will pretty much guarantee you a couple dates. Or at least a sugar daddy if you're lucky.
You stray from that formula, and you run the risk of going home alone. Also note that with the latex revolution (i.e. condoms) and birth control, we 20somethings aren't even looking for offspring so much as those fun little things we like to call orgasms. Seriously, what better way to spend the thirty or forty minutes before going to sleep than for an orgasm?
(Yes, that was rhetorical, smartasses.)
We are instructed to appear as viable as possible lest we get into competition at the bar with the slightly more attractive threat you've been glaring at all night that, unfortunately, wants the same slim-waisted honey you do. God forbid that we choose to go as natural as possible; don't wash your hair or even put John Frieda shine serum in it, never use that acne-clearing cream you secretly hate but fear to stop using, quit the ab routine you do to counterract all the alcohol you drink,or even skip the mouthwash and let someone actually taste what your saliva should taste like: spit.
First of all, I couldn't sleep at night lest go out during sunlight without doing ANY of the above things. I refuse to. Why?
Because I want to get laid.
Read My (Open) Legs
When does being easy turn into being wide open?
I've had the personal (dis)pleasure of "knowing" people (in the biblical sense, hah) who sleep around. When birth control deemed sex not used for coitus, some people decided to take it a step further and give up the idea of sex as "special" or consequential.
I'm not one who preaches about the sanctity of virginity or of super-glueing your legs shut, but is it too much to ask to have a little bit of consideration when sleeping with someone? Maybe I just have the inability to seperate sex from interest in the person, or I'm some freak of nature that wants more than just an orgasm.
Typically, one that moves from person to person to person signifies an inability to commit. It's an insecurity or immaturity (I've yet to figure out which) that seems to be more prevalent in the more attractive people of our world....or maybe just San Francisco. Adulthood means taking charge of the situation and dealing with the consequences. In the case of the slut, there's absolutely no commitment. There's actually an INABILITY to commit. It's not a choice.
Excuse the stealing of a movie quote, but has 'Vanilla Sky' not taught us anything?? There are people like Cameron Diaz's character, Julie Gianni, that feel "your body makes a promise whether you say you do or not."
Okay, to give the promiscuous some slack (like they aren't loose enough as it is. lol), it's okay to experience life the way they do. BUT. It should be done with a disclaimer, like "hell yeah, you're cute. But before I fuck you three ways from Sunday, I need to let you know that this is not going to be a relationship. I don't do relationships."
That would at least prepare someone for the parting of ways (and legs).
As much as we love the Samantha Joneses, the Brian Kinneys, and the Shane McCutcheons of the world, if you're dealing with them in the bedroom after the sex, it's really a letdown.
I've had the personal (dis)pleasure of "knowing" people (in the biblical sense, hah) who sleep around. When birth control deemed sex not used for coitus, some people decided to take it a step further and give up the idea of sex as "special" or consequential.
I'm not one who preaches about the sanctity of virginity or of super-glueing your legs shut, but is it too much to ask to have a little bit of consideration when sleeping with someone? Maybe I just have the inability to seperate sex from interest in the person, or I'm some freak of nature that wants more than just an orgasm.
Typically, one that moves from person to person to person signifies an inability to commit. It's an insecurity or immaturity (I've yet to figure out which) that seems to be more prevalent in the more attractive people of our world....or maybe just San Francisco. Adulthood means taking charge of the situation and dealing with the consequences. In the case of the slut, there's absolutely no commitment. There's actually an INABILITY to commit. It's not a choice.
Excuse the stealing of a movie quote, but has 'Vanilla Sky' not taught us anything?? There are people like Cameron Diaz's character, Julie Gianni, that feel "your body makes a promise whether you say you do or not."
Okay, to give the promiscuous some slack (like they aren't loose enough as it is. lol), it's okay to experience life the way they do. BUT. It should be done with a disclaimer, like "hell yeah, you're cute. But before I fuck you three ways from Sunday, I need to let you know that this is not going to be a relationship. I don't do relationships."
That would at least prepare someone for the parting of ways (and legs).
As much as we love the Samantha Joneses, the Brian Kinneys, and the Shane McCutcheons of the world, if you're dealing with them in the bedroom after the sex, it's really a letdown.
Social Survival of the Fittest
I exercise alone, most of the time. This isn't uncommon. I don't like the idea of having to sweat AND promote a conversation, mostly because I'm not thinking about anything of interest other than to burn some calories!
Yet I'm strangely disturbed as of late. I go to the gym (membership-only) and instead of enjoying the fact my body can move in many different ways and lift weights repetitively, I'm more involved in this...competition...with the other members!
Someone is standing next to me while I'm using free weights. I normally stick to a certain for different muscle exercises, and yet this person, who is radically more muscular than I, makes me feel bad about myself. Now I know I'm thin, but I'm quite strong. So in order to make myself feel better, I use a higher weight, JUST because this other person is causing me inner competition!
The same thing happens at the bars and clubs. Everyone around me is tallying a score to the dancing throng or worried about how they're stacking up to the next guy. Instead of the healthy belief that you can do it, you spend the four-five hours clubbing worried about how you compare to others.
Is being content with oneself really dead?
Take a friend of mine, Eddie. He's petite, Asian, but very athletic. When we go out, instead of finding the perfect potential person for the night, he complains about feeling not as tall or muscular as the guy dancing in the corner or the bartender with biceps bigger than his waist.
Even in dating, this happens with people. Is she the right one? Can I keep him until the end of the year? Will we survive if I gain ten pounds? How long will it be before he notices he's more attractive than me?
I don't like judging. Okay, well maybe a little. If I have two people vying for a chance to dance with me (which inevitably happens), I'm going to enjoy the competition and go with the best competitor! It really goes back to the animal instinct of survival of the fittest. Whomever wins is going to win the prize.
And the one that loses has to go with the next best thing; someone NOT the prize.But even when it's not about propogation of my genetics (sex), I notice competition. The gym thing, at a freshly-turned green stoplight in the car, or even at the grocery store when buying bananas (a horrid ordeal).
And you can FORGET about competing mothers. Any mother with a child who they think is god will get primeval on your ass if you even mention that your child can do something better.
We're nothing more than bags of tissue and bone and insecurities. *Sigh* To be an ape again and not care....that would be blissful ignorance at its best.
Yet I'm strangely disturbed as of late. I go to the gym (membership-only) and instead of enjoying the fact my body can move in many different ways and lift weights repetitively, I'm more involved in this...competition...with the other members!
Someone is standing next to me while I'm using free weights. I normally stick to a certain for different muscle exercises, and yet this person, who is radically more muscular than I, makes me feel bad about myself. Now I know I'm thin, but I'm quite strong. So in order to make myself feel better, I use a higher weight, JUST because this other person is causing me inner competition!
The same thing happens at the bars and clubs. Everyone around me is tallying a score to the dancing throng or worried about how they're stacking up to the next guy. Instead of the healthy belief that you can do it, you spend the four-five hours clubbing worried about how you compare to others.
Is being content with oneself really dead?
Take a friend of mine, Eddie. He's petite, Asian, but very athletic. When we go out, instead of finding the perfect potential person for the night, he complains about feeling not as tall or muscular as the guy dancing in the corner or the bartender with biceps bigger than his waist.
Even in dating, this happens with people. Is she the right one? Can I keep him until the end of the year? Will we survive if I gain ten pounds? How long will it be before he notices he's more attractive than me?
I don't like judging. Okay, well maybe a little. If I have two people vying for a chance to dance with me (which inevitably happens), I'm going to enjoy the competition and go with the best competitor! It really goes back to the animal instinct of survival of the fittest. Whomever wins is going to win the prize.
And the one that loses has to go with the next best thing; someone NOT the prize.But even when it's not about propogation of my genetics (sex), I notice competition. The gym thing, at a freshly-turned green stoplight in the car, or even at the grocery store when buying bananas (a horrid ordeal).
And you can FORGET about competing mothers. Any mother with a child who they think is god will get primeval on your ass if you even mention that your child can do something better.
We're nothing more than bags of tissue and bone and insecurities. *Sigh* To be an ape again and not care....that would be blissful ignorance at its best.
Cheating: In Love or In Style?
The relationship has been lovingly described as the "old ball and chain". It's something the trapped elephant in the corner of the circus tent gets used to and actually freaks out about once removed. People are not that much different.
Yet observe: an acquaintance of mine has been in a relationship for a while with a very kind person. All of our mutual friends love said kind person. So this person I know, whom we'll call M, falls in love quite fast AND hard. Within a month, he was telling me that at night he wakes up just to cover his lover in kisses, tell his lover that he's in love, and whatnot. You know the drill.
Yet M, on a recent vacation, ended backseat legs up with someone else for a mutual suck-off. Mind you, M's VERY vocal about thinking his lover could possibly be "the one".
Can being in love also mean playing the field?
Now, because I'm a slightly better judge of M than the standard person (mostly because his charm resides in other people's positive perception of him), I know for a fact that while he messed up royally, M IS in love.
But this isn't the first time he's made a mistake.
Seriously, how many times can you cry wolf before you cry promiscuous?
If you run around like a car salesman promising fidelity, then like a car salesman bound by the contract you are signing, you are securing a sense of trust. If you cheat/break the contract, then based on the policies set between you and your lover/car owner, a new agreement must be made. Many times in the case of the car, it ends up in court over sums of money. Thankfully in (unmarried) relationships, it's usually an argument over dvds.
BUT. If you are cheating/have cheated in the past, and continually swear that part of your life is over, the music gets old; much like Britney Spears' VMA performance. M has, four times or so in the past (I can't keep up anymore), cheated on various lovers. And it got me thinking.
It seems that more and more, men in love can separate the relationship from someone else's sex. But yet, when you are relying on a perception of fidelity, it makes no sense to go out of your way and have your penis in someone else's mouth. One would think it's almost hypocritical to do so.
Men, by nature, are built to be polygamous. I have no problems with that. After all, I AM one. Twenty billion sperm cells to be sprayed in every direction in hopes of impregnating the nearest and most viable female. Perfectly true. So biologically, men can move from lover to lover (in today's non-coitus world) without the confines of socially accepted rules.
Wait. Rules. Hm...like the socially accepted use of monogamy, the act of two people promising not to share orgasms with people NOT the other person? Or how about being truthful to all parties involved, like the other half of the relationship? Oh yeah, the RELATIONSHIP...
In terms of M, he made a promise to his lover. Now if they have an arrangement where M can go out and get his kicks and still come home and share the same bed is beyond me. Personally, I'd find the bed a little cold in this situation.
Yet observe: an acquaintance of mine has been in a relationship for a while with a very kind person. All of our mutual friends love said kind person. So this person I know, whom we'll call M, falls in love quite fast AND hard. Within a month, he was telling me that at night he wakes up just to cover his lover in kisses, tell his lover that he's in love, and whatnot. You know the drill.
Yet M, on a recent vacation, ended backseat legs up with someone else for a mutual suck-off. Mind you, M's VERY vocal about thinking his lover could possibly be "the one".
Can being in love also mean playing the field?
Now, because I'm a slightly better judge of M than the standard person (mostly because his charm resides in other people's positive perception of him), I know for a fact that while he messed up royally, M IS in love.
But this isn't the first time he's made a mistake.
Seriously, how many times can you cry wolf before you cry promiscuous?
If you run around like a car salesman promising fidelity, then like a car salesman bound by the contract you are signing, you are securing a sense of trust. If you cheat/break the contract, then based on the policies set between you and your lover/car owner, a new agreement must be made. Many times in the case of the car, it ends up in court over sums of money. Thankfully in (unmarried) relationships, it's usually an argument over dvds.
BUT. If you are cheating/have cheated in the past, and continually swear that part of your life is over, the music gets old; much like Britney Spears' VMA performance. M has, four times or so in the past (I can't keep up anymore), cheated on various lovers. And it got me thinking.
It seems that more and more, men in love can separate the relationship from someone else's sex. But yet, when you are relying on a perception of fidelity, it makes no sense to go out of your way and have your penis in someone else's mouth. One would think it's almost hypocritical to do so.
Men, by nature, are built to be polygamous. I have no problems with that. After all, I AM one. Twenty billion sperm cells to be sprayed in every direction in hopes of impregnating the nearest and most viable female. Perfectly true. So biologically, men can move from lover to lover (in today's non-coitus world) without the confines of socially accepted rules.
Wait. Rules. Hm...like the socially accepted use of monogamy, the act of two people promising not to share orgasms with people NOT the other person? Or how about being truthful to all parties involved, like the other half of the relationship? Oh yeah, the RELATIONSHIP...
In terms of M, he made a promise to his lover. Now if they have an arrangement where M can go out and get his kicks and still come home and share the same bed is beyond me. Personally, I'd find the bed a little cold in this situation.
The Ties That Orgasm
The saying is that we all want what we can't have.
What about not wanting anything we already DO have?
I know a few people that have expressed hopes in ending relationships, lifestyles, etc for the purpose of expanding their already broadened horizons. Not to say that they are feeling dull about dick or vaguely banal about vagina, but they are in situations where the only options to further their own existences are to completely cut off the ties that orgasm.
Growing up having everything you could want poses challenges.
If you've never been left wanting, would you actually get the sense of loss?
A friend of mine grew up quite affluently on the East Coast. Yet in the current relationship she's in, she can't stand the other guy save for what he can do to her in the bedroom with the lights off (and on). There is no love between the two of them. Yet despite the wails of woe for wanting out, she's staying in it half-heartedly.
This brought up the idea that because she's never had to fight for a man's attention, she doesn't really feel the need to completely cut off the ties with the current guy. Mind you, she's not cheating and never has on him. If and when she talks about other men, she does it so casually, that you assume she's just stating the "what if"s that all people go through in relationships. But in truth, she feels that she's not going to be or ever will be in love with the guy. She's not going to going to break up with him either. She ends up looking lazy and disillusioned.
On the other side of the fence, an acquaintance of mine I've previously written about, is CONSTANTLY wanting someone that he doesn't have, leading him to cheat. For instance, every time he quits the current person of his fancy, it's less than two weeks before he's sleeping with someone he formerly labeled "a really cool friend". And of course, he tries to keep his ex in his life. He's wanting so much and inexplicably feeling the loss of NOT having, that he drops what/who he's doing to go after it! He ends up looking like a salivating horn-dog.
To my friend who has everything, I tell her to discover that maybe she wants to get hurt (emotionally) for the first time in her life. Maybe to FEEL a void. To the guy I know, I try telling over and over again to deal with himself without the use of someone else's body. He needs to FILL a void inside that stems from self-want, possibly a thirst for completeness.
Notice that the two of them, while completely different in the approach, are fundamentally the same. Each is dealing with their own aspects of loss (or the lack thereof) and blocking the outcomes from themselves.
Either way, it's almost too Fitzgerald to deal with.
What about not wanting anything we already DO have?
I know a few people that have expressed hopes in ending relationships, lifestyles, etc for the purpose of expanding their already broadened horizons. Not to say that they are feeling dull about dick or vaguely banal about vagina, but they are in situations where the only options to further their own existences are to completely cut off the ties that orgasm.
Growing up having everything you could want poses challenges.
If you've never been left wanting, would you actually get the sense of loss?
A friend of mine grew up quite affluently on the East Coast. Yet in the current relationship she's in, she can't stand the other guy save for what he can do to her in the bedroom with the lights off (and on). There is no love between the two of them. Yet despite the wails of woe for wanting out, she's staying in it half-heartedly.
This brought up the idea that because she's never had to fight for a man's attention, she doesn't really feel the need to completely cut off the ties with the current guy. Mind you, she's not cheating and never has on him. If and when she talks about other men, she does it so casually, that you assume she's just stating the "what if"s that all people go through in relationships. But in truth, she feels that she's not going to be or ever will be in love with the guy. She's not going to going to break up with him either. She ends up looking lazy and disillusioned.
On the other side of the fence, an acquaintance of mine I've previously written about, is CONSTANTLY wanting someone that he doesn't have, leading him to cheat. For instance, every time he quits the current person of his fancy, it's less than two weeks before he's sleeping with someone he formerly labeled "a really cool friend". And of course, he tries to keep his ex in his life. He's wanting so much and inexplicably feeling the loss of NOT having, that he drops what/who he's doing to go after it! He ends up looking like a salivating horn-dog.
To my friend who has everything, I tell her to discover that maybe she wants to get hurt (emotionally) for the first time in her life. Maybe to FEEL a void. To the guy I know, I try telling over and over again to deal with himself without the use of someone else's body. He needs to FILL a void inside that stems from self-want, possibly a thirst for completeness.
Notice that the two of them, while completely different in the approach, are fundamentally the same. Each is dealing with their own aspects of loss (or the lack thereof) and blocking the outcomes from themselves.
Either way, it's almost too Fitzgerald to deal with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
