Someone asked the other night what was going on with me 'and women.' Just women in general, I guess. And I had to stop and think about the answer.
I don't date anymore. I never liked the process, and at this point, I'm about as popular as you might expect an overweight 55-year-old man living in a house full of fleas would be.
But I think it's important for every person to at least have a few members of the opposite sex in their lives. I think this applies even if you're gay. Monastic single-sex living is a part of both the Christian and Buddhist traditions, but I don't think it's a good thing.
This is a notion that's been rolling around in my head awhile. The taoist masters talk about the balance of yin and yang, and this is sometimes characterized metaphorically as male and female. But I believe there's a literal aspect to it as well. We all need some exposure to what my friend Randy calls the 'energy' of the opposite sex.
This doesn't necessarily mean romance and sex — it can just mean the exchange of viewpoints and ideas.
As for dating — well, the question posed to me the other night gave me a flash of realization: I think, and have always thought, the process — at least as practiced by my age/social demographic — is just silly. It's full of manufactured drama, largely patterned on TV soap operas. Which I think is what most people like about it. They like having the chaos and the angst and the rumors swirling and the gossip mills churning.
When I worked in TV, I had a friend whose romantic life was constant chaos and turmoil. She would occasionally sit down beside me, place the back of her hand to her forehead, and sigh, "Gawd, I can't believe they're saying __________ about me." What she actually meant was, "Nobody is saying __________ about me, so I guess I have to start the rumor myself."
You occasionally hear people talking about 'friends with benefits,' usually as if it were something naughty. But the more I think about it, the more I think that is how it ought to be, at least among people who can manage their sexual activities responsibly. That may be a fairly small minority, but among the vast irresponsible majority, the drama-laden conventional method doesn't seem to be working too well, either.
2 comments:
What is the definition of ‘friends with benefits’? What I hear most commonly is that this means ‘casual sex’ and ‘no strings attached,’ which usually is the furthest thing from monogamy one can get. Perhaps this is where managing sexual activities responsibly would apply??
I’ve often heard men say they’re looking for a ‘friend,’ but they certainly intend for sex to be included, yet believing the sex should remain casual, emotionally free, as in free-to-roam where’re they may.
If monogamy is between friends, does that mean they’re a couple? Boyfriend/girlfriend? Seems like silly terms to use for ‘our age’ group.
If ‘friends with benefits’ includes a real friendship, such as one which is non-controlling, non-possessive, non-manipulative, one of trust and affection with a deep desire for the well-being of another, AND one that is monogamous I could sign up for that. Then again, that’s my view of a ‘relationship’.
qiqsy
My understanding of the term would mean that as soon as one of the parties found someone with whom they wanted to pursue a romantic relationship, or if one starts a new sexual relationship with a third person, then the parties stop the benefits and return to being friends, no harm no foul.
The notion implies that you can have an emotional bond that is less than forever and marriage, a bond that is close enough for sex but not so close as to demand a lifetime commitment.
I think Mike's comment also has to be taken in the context of people who try to date at his and my age. You, Nina, are of course a mere child with bloom in your cheek and he and I are "for our age".
Nevertheless, you're in a hiatus, you aren't necessarily interested in dating anyone and you are a long way from finding the one, for example. Let's say you meet a charming guy, you are very physically attracted and have sex with him after a couple of dates. Then, as time progresses, you discover he has a single, dealbreaking flaw. He throws up on roller coasters and absolutely forbids you to ever ride one again. It's clear now that the relationship isn't going anywhere. You regretfully part company and somehow manage to remain friends. You go back on hiatus and the landscape is again sere and lonely. Time passes. You run into roller coaster guy. He's not dating anyone, either.
You really like the guy.
He's a hunk.
He's good in bed.
Impossible for you to make a deal?
Is everything else in your life and experience so perfect that the guy AND the relationship also has to be "perfect" by some other person's vague idea of what that might be?
Does pragmatism ever trump idealism?
Is sex and romance so intertwined that you can't do it just for the fun of it? and because it would be such a damn relief!
I can't claim the experience, but I have to say it makes sense to me and I can't criticize someone who can make it work for them, even if there's some guilt and confusion to pay as a price. I think jealousy is a bigger price in monogamous relationships that are forced into that mold by convention.
Just my POV. Not married to those ideas, either.
blogblah
Post a Comment