The massive popularity of 50 Shades of Grey is more than a little bit alarming. I have nothing against a little role playing, or even BDSM if that's what you're into in the bedroom. Two consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want. The problem I have is when it gets romanticized as a way of life. When a man tells a woman, "I will find you," that's the sign of someone who is seriously mentally disturbed. It's not sexy - it's very, very scary.
I come from a place of personal experience here. I've been raped, I've been stalked, and I've been held against my will. It was far from being a turn-on, and there's a good reason for that. It's called self-preservation and survival. When you're in a seriously dangerous situation with someone who is unstable, it's pretty damn stupid to want to jump their bones.
So why do people get off on this kind of thing? Because it's a fantasy. Fantasy is fine, and frankly it's a whole lot of fun. Fantasy with another person can be even more fun and sexy. What it requires, however, is a very deep level of trust. So many people are paying to read 50 Shades, and then they're traipsing off to the theatre to see it. Far too many people are thinking it's just opening up people's minds to BDSM. It's not. BDSM needs to remain in the bedroom. When one person in a relationship is being subjugated constantly and it becomes a way of life, eventually that person is going to want to do something their 'master' doesn't want them to do. When that happens the reaction can be terrifying.
What we need to figure out is why this is still such a prevalent fantasy for women. If you're one of those women, it's extremely important. In fact, it can be life-and-death important. There are women in domestic violence situations who cannot break away because they've been conditioned to believe a man should have control over them. They believe that physical strength in men is to be desired, rather than mental strength. When it comes time to press charges they don't want to, no matter how badly they may have been hurt. Men are constantly forgiven for abuses against the person they're supposed to love and cherish above all others, society passing it off as a private issue.
I'm not one of those people, and I've personally boycotted any celebrities I'm aware of that have engaged in that sort of behaviour (once it's been proven, of course). I'll never pay for a Mel Gibson movie again in my life, or a Mötley Crüe CD or song as long as Tommy Lee is involved with the project. I don't care if they've gone to jail and 'paid' for their crimes. I don't think the criminal justice system takes it seriously enough, and that's especially true of celebrities with lots of money to spend on high-priced lawyers. Real men do not lay hands on women in anger. They have no need to 'prove' their control over another person. Any man who does this is inherently weak, and is looking for ways to compensate.
This is what needs to be stressed to both women and men in order to avoid tragedies in the future, such as domestic violence and murder. The perception that a man is strong because he is physically capable of pushing someone around, and that it makes him sexy when he shows how 'manly' he is, is a very big part of the problem. Truly strong people have no need to do this. If more women understood this, they would be much less impressed by physically violent men. Controlling a woman doesn't make a man strong - having no need to control anyone is the true indicator of strength. That's called self-esteem. It's only the men who feel insecure that attempt to control others, in part because they have no control over themselves or their own lives. The more insecure a person is, the more of a control-freak they usually are.
When you really stop and think about that - I mean sit down and actually concentrate on it - it's not hard to start feeling contempt toward people who behave that way, and it doesn't matter whether it's a man or woman exhibiting the behaviour. When you truly realize that only someone who feels weak will pick on others and bully them, we start to lose respect for them. We can see that they must have serious problems of their own that are triggering the behaviour, and it's less and less likely that we will allow them that control over us. It doesn't apply only to domestic violence, either.
When it comes to role-playing, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with it. As long as there's a clear delineation between reality and fantasy. Some people enjoy subjugation, but when you take a mental trip and imagine your entire life spent in bending to the will of another, how many people truly want that as a part of their lives? What happens when you come home from a job you love, and your partner tells you that you have to quit so you can serve them? What happens when you're not allowed to see friends and family members that you love? What happens when you start having to explain the bruises to other people? Are you going to start lying and covering up? If your response to a query is simply a smirk and a fond memory of the night before, that's fine. If your response is along the lines of fearing what will happen if others find out, maybe you need to do some serious thinking about where you want your relationship to go, or if you want it going anywhere.
Showing posts with label Sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sex. Show all posts
Monday, 16 February 2015
Monday, 30 June 2014
Hypocrisy in the Crafting World - Hobby Lobby is Run by Twits
I wasn't going to do it. I wasn't going to get on my metaphorical horse and joust with idiots again, but...I have to. I just have to. I'm pissed off, and the odd Facebook status just isn't going to cut it for me.
Today Hobby Lobby in the United States won in Supreme Court the right to refuse to cover birth control for their employees, supposedly based on their religious beliefs. By law, with the relatively new Affordable Care Act in place, certain types of employers must provide prescription drug coverage, along with coverage of certain medical devices. Hobby Lobby refused and sued for their supposed religious freedom.
Point one. Corporations are not religions. They are not people. They are legally-defined business entities in existence for the purposes of for-profit practices. Period. They do not have religious beliefs. They do not have feelings in any way, shape, or form. Now, I have a bit of experience in business, so I'm pretty familiar with what it means to run one. I didn't choose to incorporate my business, and simply registered the company name. Still, my company, a sole-proprietorship, would never be used to tell people what they are allowed to do with their own bodies. As much as I might like rules and regulations in some ways, because I'm anal-retentive that way, in other ways I'm very much the rebel. The thought of anyone telling me what to do, especially with my own body and reproductive choices, is enough to steam my clams so to speak. The first person to try something like that with me would be walking funny, male or female, because I'd be kicking them in their own parts whichever set they happened to be carrying on their person. They try to control my body, I try to control theirs - rather unpleasant for all concerned.
Point two. Birth control is not always used for birth control. There are a very large number of women who are on birth control for medical reasons, such as endometriosis and migraines. Very real, and very debilitating medical conditions. So, these women are now to be denied coverage for these very necessary medications, unless they decide to make exceptions under those circumstances. However, therein lies another issue - the issue of medical confidentiality. These women would have to open up their medical records enough to show that they need these drugs to control their conditions. Now, as a business-owner and former HR employee with a multi-national company, I have always felt that I needed to remain one step removed from the medical insurance provided to employees. I do not want to know what they are being treated for. I really do not want to know. Billy could have gonorrhea, and Carol might be HIV positive. This is none of my business, unless their illness interferes with their work and they can no longer do their jobs to the standard they were hired for.
Point three. This is where the first part of the hypocrisy comes in. Hobby Lobby invests in multiple pharmaceutical endeavors, which encompass pretty much everything they told the Supreme Court was against their religion to support. IUDs, Plan-B, and actual medical abortion to name a few. I'm not kidding. The mutual funds they invest in for the company are involved in all of those activities. So, the religious grounds fall a little short there, don't you think?
Point four. Part two of the hypocrisy. They didn't decide to fight coverage of Viagra. Um, excuse me? You can help men with their erections, which is in no way medically necessary, but you refuse to cover birth control pills that can enable women to live healthy lives? You believe anyone who has sex should be willing to have children? Hmm. Okay. So what about maternity leave? I guess that's a non-issue since they're not required to pay for it down there. However, when an employee does leave because they have a baby, that costs a company money. Even if the employee comes back within three weeks, they still have to have other employees cover the shifts, or hire on temporary help. It's a costly disruption from an employer's perspective. If the employee chooses to leave permanently, it's even more expensive. Hiring and training don't come cheap.
Point five. The United States was supposed to be a land of religious freedom. For people. Not corporations...people. This decision means an infringement on the religious rights of the employees of this company. They're being told that the corporation's religious stance is more important than the beliefs of its employees. When I myself do not believe I should be telling anyone what they may, or may not, do with their own bodies (me being an actual living human being), there is no way a company should ever have that sort of influence. The managers can set rules of conduct to be followed during work hours and on work property. They cannot tell employees what to do otherwise. If the VP of marketing wants to have a three-way or six-way which involves jumper cables, a circus clown and a banana, she can do that. The religious beliefs of the company do not enter into it, even if a lot of other things might. If the dock supervisor wants a frenulum ladder piercing, that's entirely up to him, even though I really don't want to see it (however much fun it's supposed to be).
Point six. This could also come under the first point, but I'm keeping it separate for the purposes of detail. The whole idea behind incorporation is to separate the personal from the business. It protects the business owner from a certain amount of financial risk. The corporation is meant to stand alone as a separate entity. Not a religious/sentient one - just separate. If a company gets sued, the owner doesn't have to lose his house, basically. Now the way it works here in Canada is if you pierce the corporate bubble/veil by interfering with the business in a personal way, such as dipping your hand in the company till for personal expenditures, you as the owner suddenly lose corporate protection and open yourself up to personal litigation. Now here comes Hobby Lobby looking to have things both ways. They run a corporation to protect themselves legally, but then impose their personal beliefs on the corporate entity. Talk about having your cake and eating it, too.
Point seven. If you want to run a business, then run a business and keep your nose out of everyone else's. If you want to run a religion, then you register as a non-profit religious organization where you're no longer allowed to make those kinds of profit. Oops. Suddenly things get sticky. That's not to say religious groups don't bring in lots of money, because we all know they do. There's a great deal of profit to be had with most of them, and operating your own cult and setting up as a guru of sorts will get you all kinds of fun stuff. In some cases a lot of sex with a lot of different people, along with the tons of money people sign over to you. Hmm. Methinks it's time to become a religious leader. Then again, I think I'd have a very hard time keeping a straight face while touting the wisdom of The Great Gazoo or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Today Hobby Lobby in the United States won in Supreme Court the right to refuse to cover birth control for their employees, supposedly based on their religious beliefs. By law, with the relatively new Affordable Care Act in place, certain types of employers must provide prescription drug coverage, along with coverage of certain medical devices. Hobby Lobby refused and sued for their supposed religious freedom.
Point one. Corporations are not religions. They are not people. They are legally-defined business entities in existence for the purposes of for-profit practices. Period. They do not have religious beliefs. They do not have feelings in any way, shape, or form. Now, I have a bit of experience in business, so I'm pretty familiar with what it means to run one. I didn't choose to incorporate my business, and simply registered the company name. Still, my company, a sole-proprietorship, would never be used to tell people what they are allowed to do with their own bodies. As much as I might like rules and regulations in some ways, because I'm anal-retentive that way, in other ways I'm very much the rebel. The thought of anyone telling me what to do, especially with my own body and reproductive choices, is enough to steam my clams so to speak. The first person to try something like that with me would be walking funny, male or female, because I'd be kicking them in their own parts whichever set they happened to be carrying on their person. They try to control my body, I try to control theirs - rather unpleasant for all concerned.
Point two. Birth control is not always used for birth control. There are a very large number of women who are on birth control for medical reasons, such as endometriosis and migraines. Very real, and very debilitating medical conditions. So, these women are now to be denied coverage for these very necessary medications, unless they decide to make exceptions under those circumstances. However, therein lies another issue - the issue of medical confidentiality. These women would have to open up their medical records enough to show that they need these drugs to control their conditions. Now, as a business-owner and former HR employee with a multi-national company, I have always felt that I needed to remain one step removed from the medical insurance provided to employees. I do not want to know what they are being treated for. I really do not want to know. Billy could have gonorrhea, and Carol might be HIV positive. This is none of my business, unless their illness interferes with their work and they can no longer do their jobs to the standard they were hired for.
Point three. This is where the first part of the hypocrisy comes in. Hobby Lobby invests in multiple pharmaceutical endeavors, which encompass pretty much everything they told the Supreme Court was against their religion to support. IUDs, Plan-B, and actual medical abortion to name a few. I'm not kidding. The mutual funds they invest in for the company are involved in all of those activities. So, the religious grounds fall a little short there, don't you think?
Point four. Part two of the hypocrisy. They didn't decide to fight coverage of Viagra. Um, excuse me? You can help men with their erections, which is in no way medically necessary, but you refuse to cover birth control pills that can enable women to live healthy lives? You believe anyone who has sex should be willing to have children? Hmm. Okay. So what about maternity leave? I guess that's a non-issue since they're not required to pay for it down there. However, when an employee does leave because they have a baby, that costs a company money. Even if the employee comes back within three weeks, they still have to have other employees cover the shifts, or hire on temporary help. It's a costly disruption from an employer's perspective. If the employee chooses to leave permanently, it's even more expensive. Hiring and training don't come cheap.
Point five. The United States was supposed to be a land of religious freedom. For people. Not corporations...people. This decision means an infringement on the religious rights of the employees of this company. They're being told that the corporation's religious stance is more important than the beliefs of its employees. When I myself do not believe I should be telling anyone what they may, or may not, do with their own bodies (me being an actual living human being), there is no way a company should ever have that sort of influence. The managers can set rules of conduct to be followed during work hours and on work property. They cannot tell employees what to do otherwise. If the VP of marketing wants to have a three-way or six-way which involves jumper cables, a circus clown and a banana, she can do that. The religious beliefs of the company do not enter into it, even if a lot of other things might. If the dock supervisor wants a frenulum ladder piercing, that's entirely up to him, even though I really don't want to see it (however much fun it's supposed to be).
Point six. This could also come under the first point, but I'm keeping it separate for the purposes of detail. The whole idea behind incorporation is to separate the personal from the business. It protects the business owner from a certain amount of financial risk. The corporation is meant to stand alone as a separate entity. Not a religious/sentient one - just separate. If a company gets sued, the owner doesn't have to lose his house, basically. Now the way it works here in Canada is if you pierce the corporate bubble/veil by interfering with the business in a personal way, such as dipping your hand in the company till for personal expenditures, you as the owner suddenly lose corporate protection and open yourself up to personal litigation. Now here comes Hobby Lobby looking to have things both ways. They run a corporation to protect themselves legally, but then impose their personal beliefs on the corporate entity. Talk about having your cake and eating it, too.
Point seven. If you want to run a business, then run a business and keep your nose out of everyone else's. If you want to run a religion, then you register as a non-profit religious organization where you're no longer allowed to make those kinds of profit. Oops. Suddenly things get sticky. That's not to say religious groups don't bring in lots of money, because we all know they do. There's a great deal of profit to be had with most of them, and operating your own cult and setting up as a guru of sorts will get you all kinds of fun stuff. In some cases a lot of sex with a lot of different people, along with the tons of money people sign over to you. Hmm. Methinks it's time to become a religious leader. Then again, I think I'd have a very hard time keeping a straight face while touting the wisdom of The Great Gazoo or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Wednesday, 28 May 2014
Stalkers and Obsessions in Romance and Young Adult Fiction
Recently I succumbed to the urge to read a certain popular series. Pretty much everyone on the planet will know exactly what I'm talking about when I mention the Twilight 'saga' from Stephanie Meyer. Not only were the four main novels in the series wildly popular, but they've all been made into movies as well. I also read two books complementary to the four main ones, and I have to say they really scare me.
No, I don't mean scared in the sense of lying awake at night, afraid a vampire was going to come out of my closet. What scared me was the fact that these novels didn't seem to get a lot of flak from parents. Sure, the storyline itself is entertaining. The problem is the fact that the two main characters have serious mental health issues.
The four main books are written in the first person, which I always find annoying anyway. I prefer third person omniscient, myself, but that's purely an aesthetic and personal viewpoint. The perspective is that of a teenage girl who becomes completely obsessed with what looks like a teenage boy, but is in fact a man who's closer to a hundred years old. If we saw a 100-year-old man walking down the street with a 17-year-old on his arm, in most responsible people that would bring on a large measure of disgust for the dirty old man and his perverted proclivities.
In addition to that, the male love interest leaves her because he thinks it will be safer for her not to be exposed to him and his vampire 'family' any longer. When this happens she basically loses her mind. She becomes nearly catatonic in her grief, and when she comes out of that she's still living life in such a robotic fashion that she's startled to realize she's more like a zombie than a human being. Now that's what we call an obsession.
Even after she realizes what she's doing, and starts to live her life again, she starts taking risks with her life because she starts hearing his voice in her head whenever she does anything that might kill her. At first I thought maybe there was a psychic thing going on in the stories, but it turns out she was really hearing voices - well, one voice anyway - and the voice wasn't actually there. So, now she's obsessed and schizophrenic. She's having auditory hallucinations brought on by adrenaline spikes.
Eventually her obsession comes back to her, and suddenly she's alive again. However, she can't stand to spend even an hour or two away from him without feeling like there's a big hole in her chest where her heart used to be.
Worse than that, though, is the fact that he spends a fair bit of time stalking her before they're even together. He went through her house, he was in her room while she was sleeping and watched her pretty much every night. He looked through her things, including her books and music. When they do finally become an official couple, he sneaks into her room to stay with her every single night. At least by then she knows about it and is actually asking him to stay with her. In fact, she's not actually asking. It's more like pleading.
I was teenager once myself, and I remember the volatility that comes along with that. I think we're all a little unbalanced when it comes to first loves. I had a couple of them. My relationships when I was a teenager were monogamous ones that lasted at least a year each. The entire year I was fourteen I was with one guy and he actually asked me to marry him - he was nineteen, so looking back that seems a little off-kilter to me. I had my first major obsession when I was fifteen and sixteen. It was a tumultuous relationship with a Roman Catholic whose mother didn't approve. I did my share of stupid things, but the heartbreak was over a couple of weeks after he dumped me. I'm not one to hang on. It probably has something to do with having a healthy (or sinful) measure of pride. There was no way I was going to prostrate myself before someone who didn't want me.
I was also a parent to a teenager. My daughter had her own mild obsession, and eventually her feelings were no longer 'unrequited,' but they grew apart and it was over. Basically she had a lot of interest in what he was doing, and in his life in general, but stalking is not something that was ever in her character - even less so than it was in mine. In fact, when I was a teenager I longed desperately to fall in love, get married, and make lots of babies with a man who adored me. My daughter has little interest in that, though she does want a kid one day. She's not a lesbian, so it isn't about her orientation. She just doesn't like the idea of spending that much time with another person, which the exception of her own child. Thankfully she hasn't made me a grandmother yet, because I'm just not ready for that. I'm still vaguely within the age of being able to have kids myself, so it just seems too weird to me.
Now my daughter is almost halfway through her twenties, and completely skipped out on any mental health problems associated with teenage crushes. I'm in my early forties. The funny thing is, I personally feel the danger of books like the Twilight series. Romance novels are often the same, too. There's still an envy there for me. At my age the statistics aren't good when it comes to me finding anyone I can give my whole heart to. I've had moments where I thought I'd be able to, but the feelings weren't reciprocated so I shut my own feelings down right away. It's not that I don't have them; I just don't let my brain run off with my heart.
Still, there's a sadness and envy invoked by obsessive love stories, even for me. I think we're all somewhat conditioned to think of that as the only real love there is. Even when we know better logically, a part of us still wants that unquestioning devotion and adoration. Beneath the tough exterior beats the heart of a marshmallow, I guess. I know better than to ever put myself in that position with anyone, because I've seen where those situations usually lead. Besides, I'm not really that mentally unhealthy anyway, that I absolutely can't live without someone. The proof is in the pudding in my case, seeing as I've been separated for a long time. There was an interruption of less than four months, where I was seeing someone, but it never got to the 'I love you' stage.
After I was done reading the Twilight books I felt sad. I didn't want the stories to end, because a very dangerous and insidious part of myself wanted to live vicariously through an obsessive love story. As an adult woman with a better understanding of mental health, however, I can deal with those feeling in a positive manner. Teenagers, on the other hand, do not have the life experience to see the books for what they really are. They're unrealistic, and they're very dangerous. Showing teenagers a happy ending within such an unhealthy context can breed an unhealthy real-life situation. Even with a parent telling them that the relationship in the series is not a good one, and explaining why, no teenager is going to believe it unless they've already been given a very good background in what it means to be in a healthy relationship. Considering the statistics on divorce and domestic violence, however, those teachings are very limited.
Speaking from a bizarre personal perspective, I was lucky in one way. I had a terrible childhood, being raised by terrible grandparents, yet it was my physically abusive grandmother who gave me my foothold on reality and feminism. She wore the pants in that house, and she's the one who told me (the first time she saw me reading a romance), that reality was not anything like its portrayal in romance novels. For many years, historical romances were my very favourite books. Eventually, after years of personal experience that was contrary to the happy endings I was reading about, I realized she was right about that one thing. It was also because of her that I never felt I was anything less worthy than any man, because I was raised in a home where a woman was deferred to in all things.
Teenagers, especially those who come from broken homes, are looking desperately for role models for every aspect of their lives. If their parents don't have a successful relationship, they look for people who do - even if they happen to be fictional, dangerous, and unrealistic. With few real human relationships to look up to, they look to movies, books, music, and any other form of entertainment. The Twilight series gives them characters with a happy ending, but if either of those people were living in the real world (vampire lore aside), the ending would probably be very different. Obsession is not love. Obsession often becomes possession. Even within the books, right from the beginning they claim ownership of one another, and grant ownership to each other.
The very real need some people have to 'belong' to someone else stems from emptiness within. There is a hole inside them, desperately wanting to be filled - just like the movie Jerry Maguire, with the whole, "You complete me," thing. Nobody completes anyone else. We're all individual human beings. My former mother-in-law used to tell me that if I'd wanted to accomplish my own things in life, I probably shouldn't have gotten married. Um, what? I wasn't allowed aspirations and goals because I was married??? Her son was allowed those dreams, though. Right. That makes total sense. Never mind the fact that I was the breadwinner in the family at the time, and he was disabled. Reaching for goals was my way of looking to be a better provider, but that wasn't allowed because I was supposed to be nothing but a wife. Of course, this advice was coming from a divorced woman who had been nothing but a wife to her husband, yet he left her anyway. I always felt like saying, "So how did that work out for you?"
My view on the subject, and something that came up during a discussing about one of the guests we had on the show recently, is that people shouldn't even get into a relationship until the hole inside them is filled and they're a whole person. Until then you don't know who you are or what will be best for you. You're still striving and your core personality is still forming. The guest on the show was saying all women want men to take charge, which is completely overstating what women want. I'm certainly not one of those women who want a man taking charge. If there's a decisions to be made that will affect me, then I want to be a part of making the decision. I don't want anyone arbitrarily making choices for me.
Thankfully that notion brings to heel any thought of having a man swoop in and rescue me from my own life, which is what a lot of romance novels are about. The man comes along and everything that was wrong in a woman's life is miraculously fixed by him. It doesn't work that way, especially if you're a woman who's the least bit independent. Men seem to feel as if they have to fix everything, even when a woman has a problem and she wants to vent about it. Men will try to tell her how to fix it, rather than just listening and letting her vent.
Often the 'fixing' comes in the form of advice, but sometimes it involves actually doing what the woman should be capable of doing herself. Some women do like that, but there's a trade-off that I would personally never be willing to make. When you allow someone to 'fix' your life, you're also allowing them to take over decision-making, which renders a woman useless and redundant to her own life. Suddenly the man is taking charge of her, rather than simply her problems - and mostly because there's now the unspoken agreement between them that she can't handle the herculean chore of running her own life without his help.
Not being able to run your own life, and having someone do it for you, puts you in the category of being a child. It's not just women who are placed there, but on average it's almost always the female in a relationship. There are women to this day who work, but allow their husbands to interfere with problems they face in the workplace. Husbands who feel their wives aren't treated well, or properly (as in sexual harassment cases), will come charging in to confront the supposedly guilty party. Now consider how this woman will be treated in the workplace from now on. Sure, maybe the original problem never rears its head again, but then she'll never be respected again either. She will be known as someone who can't handle real responsibility. If she wasn't in a position of authority, she will never be promoted to one. If she was already in a position of authority, her authority will not be respected and she will not gain additional authority.
This is also the danger in reporting sexual harassment if it's done in a place that doesn't really respect legislation. Suddenly she's a woman who 'can't handle a joke' or simply can't enforce her own authority. Speaking personally on that, I've always just given as good as I've gotten when the harassment was directed toward me. No man ever dared to step over the line with me either, but then I have the sort of personality that makes it very clear I would never tolerate it. People just know that I have indelible lines that can't be crossed. On the other hand, when I saw other women being harassed I did report it, in writing, so that there was no way the company could get away with not doing something about it. Reporting someone else being harassed doesn't have the same connotation of being a whiner who can't handle things. I was also in a position of authority within the company, and it was my duty to do something about it.
The tiny part of me that would want a man to swoop in and be my dream-come-true/knight-in-shining-armour, is the part of me that's tired, I think. I've spent my life fighting to keep my head above water, against some rather interesting odds. I've had many challenges, and I think it might be nice to one day not have to be the one who does all the struggling, so therein lies the answer to my wishful thinking. The few times I think like that, I remind myself of the price to be paid for wallowing in that fantasy. I've made the mistake of going there on occasion in my romantic history, and after a few decades of being slapped for it I'm now fully conscious of that price. I always have much less of a fight to keep my head above water when I count only on myself to keep me afloat.
What I really need, if I ever have another serious relationship, is someone who is capable of running their own life, and someone who has my back that I can fully trust to be there for me emotionally, but not someone who tries to take over the running of my life. Decisions can be made mutually, compromises are perfectly fine, and acceptance of who I really am is mandatory. That last thing is so vital, though, and very few people are actually capable of acceptance when it comes to their life partner. Especially when their life partner has some unusual quirks.
Speaking from personal experience, there are very few people in the world who accept the fact that I sleep during the day, and that has always been my natural pattern. Never mind the fact that I crack every joint in my body, and swear like the proverbial sailor. I can be harsh, too. I'm not unforgiving, but there are people I've removed from my life because I also don't forget. My mother and step-father are good examples. I may have forgiven the fact that my mother left me when I was four years old, and knowingly left me in the care of monsters - her parents. I could never forget it, though. I could never forget the fact that she suspected my grandfather of molesting me, and still left me there. Two deep betrayals that made it impossible for me to ever trust her, or allow myself to love her. The childish yearnings for motherly love disappeared within me forever. I do not want any kind of mother in my life. My step-father turned out to be a faithless jerk who fooled around on my mother, and that shows me a character flaw so important to me that I could never trust him either.
So, I can forgive, but when a person shows their colours you can't simply forget about them. You have to factor those flaws into the big picture. In some cases a person's flaws make them more human and lovable. There's a quote from the movie Hellboy that says, "You like someone for their qualities, but you love them for their flaws," and I think that's very true. Perfect people aren't even very likeable, never mind lovable. There is too much envy involved when another person is 'perfect,' along with self-consciousness because we know we aren't perfect. Of course, no one is actually perfect, but sometimes a person views another unrealistically as being being perfect.
Maybe my imperfections will be lovable to someone some day. I hope so. For the most part I'm content with my life, and I could probably be content to be alone for the remainder of it. It's not really what I want if I'm being honest with myself. If I wanted to be alone, I wouldn't feel sad after reading books like Twilight. I wouldn't have registered with an online dating site a year ago - a profile that I deleted when I started dating someone exclusively. I haven't done a new profile yet because I'm just not ready to start up with a stranger again, and it takes a long time to really get to know someone enough to love them - either on the basis of friendship, or on romantic love. Attraction comes instantly, as does infatuation, but the kind of love where you would notice someone was missing from your life if they weren't there...that takes time. Starting a brand new relationship with a stranger is not something I've got the time or energy for right now.
I was talking to a friend about how holding hands with someone can feel weird, and he said that if I was madly in love with them then I would probably want to. He's right. I would. I would feel the need for physical closeness. I'm actually very affectionate that way when I love someone, or even when I'm in a romantic relationship where I really like them. It's the only kind of relationship where I can be really touchy-feely. I can hug my daughter, but neither of us likes hugging very much so it only happens on occasions like birthdays, or when there's a death of one of our pets. When I lost Stimpy (my first ferret), I think my daughter was afraid to hug me, because I was already falling to pieces. Getting comfort when you're like that can sometimes be just enough to break you. The stiff upper lip starts to quiver, and then you're a blubbering mess.
Back to the topic at hand, however. Obsessive love and stalking are so prevalent in all forms of media that it has become absorbed almost to our cores. I think almost everyone I know has that little piece inside them that wishes they could have that. I'm sure I'm not alone there, or how would the writers of romantic fiction ever make any money? Rom-coms wouldn't make a penny at the box office, either. Men are told to be persistent, despite the fact that it's actually harassment to keep going after a woman who says no. It's part of the rape culture. Men are rewarded for persistence by eventually getting their rocks off, even if it's not consensual - often because the woman gets tired of being harassed and gives in to what she starts thinking is inevitable.
Romance novels used to be called 'bodice rippers' for a good reason. Almost every book involved rape in some form or another - usually a man was 'pushed beyond reason' into 'giving her what she really wants.' Apparently forcing a woman into sex solved all relationship problems - yes, that was sarcasm. This was only twenty years ago, and despite the fact that publishers are telling would-be authors that they don't want that kind of book, they're still publishing books about very unhealthy relationships. I actually wrote a historical romance many years ago. It sits (completed) in a box somewhere. It will never be published under my own name, because I will never allow myself to be pigeon-holed as a romance writer. Once that happens you're rarely seen as any other kind of writer.
A good example is Nora Roberts. Under her own name she writes romances. Under the pseudonym of J. D. Robb she writes what's called the 'in death' series. All but one title uses the words 'in death,' such as, "Naked in Death" and "Glory in Death." The books' main character is a female kick-ass cop in the future. For a long time, because it was known to be a pseudonym of Nora Roberts, those books were always put in the romance section of every book store I went into. There are romantic relationships within the series, but the books are mainly about the main character being a homicide cop. They're murder-mysteries, and yet they were labeled as romance. Now when I go in the book store, though, they're finally filed under the main fiction section. I haven't seen them in the romance section for quite a while, but it still took a long time for the series to be recognized for what it really was.
Another reason I don't think I'll submit my romance novel for publication is that I'm rather ashamed of it. I'm just as guilty of writing anti-feminist crap as any other romance writer. I would have to cut and slash the novel to ribbons in order to fix the problem. I don't want to be another Stephanie Meyer, creating mentally ill characters for people (particularly teenagers) to emulate. I would prefer to be responsible with my writing and portray women as something other than helpless victims to their own ineptitude. So, despite my (not-so-secret-now) wishing that I might have that sort of unhealthy connection with a man, I know better than to fall for it. I can only hope that most teenagers will outgrow their interest in the series.
Maybe there's an antidote. Maybe one day I'll write about the kind of relationship that's real and healthy. Two people dedicated and devoted to one another, without having to give up who they are. People who don't orient themselves to their partners to the exclusion of all else in their lives. Now that would be a relationship worth emulating. They say, "Write what you know," though, and I have no personal experience from which to draw.
No, I don't mean scared in the sense of lying awake at night, afraid a vampire was going to come out of my closet. What scared me was the fact that these novels didn't seem to get a lot of flak from parents. Sure, the storyline itself is entertaining. The problem is the fact that the two main characters have serious mental health issues.
The four main books are written in the first person, which I always find annoying anyway. I prefer third person omniscient, myself, but that's purely an aesthetic and personal viewpoint. The perspective is that of a teenage girl who becomes completely obsessed with what looks like a teenage boy, but is in fact a man who's closer to a hundred years old. If we saw a 100-year-old man walking down the street with a 17-year-old on his arm, in most responsible people that would bring on a large measure of disgust for the dirty old man and his perverted proclivities.
In addition to that, the male love interest leaves her because he thinks it will be safer for her not to be exposed to him and his vampire 'family' any longer. When this happens she basically loses her mind. She becomes nearly catatonic in her grief, and when she comes out of that she's still living life in such a robotic fashion that she's startled to realize she's more like a zombie than a human being. Now that's what we call an obsession.
Even after she realizes what she's doing, and starts to live her life again, she starts taking risks with her life because she starts hearing his voice in her head whenever she does anything that might kill her. At first I thought maybe there was a psychic thing going on in the stories, but it turns out she was really hearing voices - well, one voice anyway - and the voice wasn't actually there. So, now she's obsessed and schizophrenic. She's having auditory hallucinations brought on by adrenaline spikes.
Eventually her obsession comes back to her, and suddenly she's alive again. However, she can't stand to spend even an hour or two away from him without feeling like there's a big hole in her chest where her heart used to be.
Worse than that, though, is the fact that he spends a fair bit of time stalking her before they're even together. He went through her house, he was in her room while she was sleeping and watched her pretty much every night. He looked through her things, including her books and music. When they do finally become an official couple, he sneaks into her room to stay with her every single night. At least by then she knows about it and is actually asking him to stay with her. In fact, she's not actually asking. It's more like pleading.
I was teenager once myself, and I remember the volatility that comes along with that. I think we're all a little unbalanced when it comes to first loves. I had a couple of them. My relationships when I was a teenager were monogamous ones that lasted at least a year each. The entire year I was fourteen I was with one guy and he actually asked me to marry him - he was nineteen, so looking back that seems a little off-kilter to me. I had my first major obsession when I was fifteen and sixteen. It was a tumultuous relationship with a Roman Catholic whose mother didn't approve. I did my share of stupid things, but the heartbreak was over a couple of weeks after he dumped me. I'm not one to hang on. It probably has something to do with having a healthy (or sinful) measure of pride. There was no way I was going to prostrate myself before someone who didn't want me.
I was also a parent to a teenager. My daughter had her own mild obsession, and eventually her feelings were no longer 'unrequited,' but they grew apart and it was over. Basically she had a lot of interest in what he was doing, and in his life in general, but stalking is not something that was ever in her character - even less so than it was in mine. In fact, when I was a teenager I longed desperately to fall in love, get married, and make lots of babies with a man who adored me. My daughter has little interest in that, though she does want a kid one day. She's not a lesbian, so it isn't about her orientation. She just doesn't like the idea of spending that much time with another person, which the exception of her own child. Thankfully she hasn't made me a grandmother yet, because I'm just not ready for that. I'm still vaguely within the age of being able to have kids myself, so it just seems too weird to me.
Now my daughter is almost halfway through her twenties, and completely skipped out on any mental health problems associated with teenage crushes. I'm in my early forties. The funny thing is, I personally feel the danger of books like the Twilight series. Romance novels are often the same, too. There's still an envy there for me. At my age the statistics aren't good when it comes to me finding anyone I can give my whole heart to. I've had moments where I thought I'd be able to, but the feelings weren't reciprocated so I shut my own feelings down right away. It's not that I don't have them; I just don't let my brain run off with my heart.
Still, there's a sadness and envy invoked by obsessive love stories, even for me. I think we're all somewhat conditioned to think of that as the only real love there is. Even when we know better logically, a part of us still wants that unquestioning devotion and adoration. Beneath the tough exterior beats the heart of a marshmallow, I guess. I know better than to ever put myself in that position with anyone, because I've seen where those situations usually lead. Besides, I'm not really that mentally unhealthy anyway, that I absolutely can't live without someone. The proof is in the pudding in my case, seeing as I've been separated for a long time. There was an interruption of less than four months, where I was seeing someone, but it never got to the 'I love you' stage.
After I was done reading the Twilight books I felt sad. I didn't want the stories to end, because a very dangerous and insidious part of myself wanted to live vicariously through an obsessive love story. As an adult woman with a better understanding of mental health, however, I can deal with those feeling in a positive manner. Teenagers, on the other hand, do not have the life experience to see the books for what they really are. They're unrealistic, and they're very dangerous. Showing teenagers a happy ending within such an unhealthy context can breed an unhealthy real-life situation. Even with a parent telling them that the relationship in the series is not a good one, and explaining why, no teenager is going to believe it unless they've already been given a very good background in what it means to be in a healthy relationship. Considering the statistics on divorce and domestic violence, however, those teachings are very limited.
Speaking from a bizarre personal perspective, I was lucky in one way. I had a terrible childhood, being raised by terrible grandparents, yet it was my physically abusive grandmother who gave me my foothold on reality and feminism. She wore the pants in that house, and she's the one who told me (the first time she saw me reading a romance), that reality was not anything like its portrayal in romance novels. For many years, historical romances were my very favourite books. Eventually, after years of personal experience that was contrary to the happy endings I was reading about, I realized she was right about that one thing. It was also because of her that I never felt I was anything less worthy than any man, because I was raised in a home where a woman was deferred to in all things.
Teenagers, especially those who come from broken homes, are looking desperately for role models for every aspect of their lives. If their parents don't have a successful relationship, they look for people who do - even if they happen to be fictional, dangerous, and unrealistic. With few real human relationships to look up to, they look to movies, books, music, and any other form of entertainment. The Twilight series gives them characters with a happy ending, but if either of those people were living in the real world (vampire lore aside), the ending would probably be very different. Obsession is not love. Obsession often becomes possession. Even within the books, right from the beginning they claim ownership of one another, and grant ownership to each other.
The very real need some people have to 'belong' to someone else stems from emptiness within. There is a hole inside them, desperately wanting to be filled - just like the movie Jerry Maguire, with the whole, "You complete me," thing. Nobody completes anyone else. We're all individual human beings. My former mother-in-law used to tell me that if I'd wanted to accomplish my own things in life, I probably shouldn't have gotten married. Um, what? I wasn't allowed aspirations and goals because I was married??? Her son was allowed those dreams, though. Right. That makes total sense. Never mind the fact that I was the breadwinner in the family at the time, and he was disabled. Reaching for goals was my way of looking to be a better provider, but that wasn't allowed because I was supposed to be nothing but a wife. Of course, this advice was coming from a divorced woman who had been nothing but a wife to her husband, yet he left her anyway. I always felt like saying, "So how did that work out for you?"
My view on the subject, and something that came up during a discussing about one of the guests we had on the show recently, is that people shouldn't even get into a relationship until the hole inside them is filled and they're a whole person. Until then you don't know who you are or what will be best for you. You're still striving and your core personality is still forming. The guest on the show was saying all women want men to take charge, which is completely overstating what women want. I'm certainly not one of those women who want a man taking charge. If there's a decisions to be made that will affect me, then I want to be a part of making the decision. I don't want anyone arbitrarily making choices for me.
Thankfully that notion brings to heel any thought of having a man swoop in and rescue me from my own life, which is what a lot of romance novels are about. The man comes along and everything that was wrong in a woman's life is miraculously fixed by him. It doesn't work that way, especially if you're a woman who's the least bit independent. Men seem to feel as if they have to fix everything, even when a woman has a problem and she wants to vent about it. Men will try to tell her how to fix it, rather than just listening and letting her vent.
Often the 'fixing' comes in the form of advice, but sometimes it involves actually doing what the woman should be capable of doing herself. Some women do like that, but there's a trade-off that I would personally never be willing to make. When you allow someone to 'fix' your life, you're also allowing them to take over decision-making, which renders a woman useless and redundant to her own life. Suddenly the man is taking charge of her, rather than simply her problems - and mostly because there's now the unspoken agreement between them that she can't handle the herculean chore of running her own life without his help.
Not being able to run your own life, and having someone do it for you, puts you in the category of being a child. It's not just women who are placed there, but on average it's almost always the female in a relationship. There are women to this day who work, but allow their husbands to interfere with problems they face in the workplace. Husbands who feel their wives aren't treated well, or properly (as in sexual harassment cases), will come charging in to confront the supposedly guilty party. Now consider how this woman will be treated in the workplace from now on. Sure, maybe the original problem never rears its head again, but then she'll never be respected again either. She will be known as someone who can't handle real responsibility. If she wasn't in a position of authority, she will never be promoted to one. If she was already in a position of authority, her authority will not be respected and she will not gain additional authority.
This is also the danger in reporting sexual harassment if it's done in a place that doesn't really respect legislation. Suddenly she's a woman who 'can't handle a joke' or simply can't enforce her own authority. Speaking personally on that, I've always just given as good as I've gotten when the harassment was directed toward me. No man ever dared to step over the line with me either, but then I have the sort of personality that makes it very clear I would never tolerate it. People just know that I have indelible lines that can't be crossed. On the other hand, when I saw other women being harassed I did report it, in writing, so that there was no way the company could get away with not doing something about it. Reporting someone else being harassed doesn't have the same connotation of being a whiner who can't handle things. I was also in a position of authority within the company, and it was my duty to do something about it.
The tiny part of me that would want a man to swoop in and be my dream-come-true/knight-in-shining-armour, is the part of me that's tired, I think. I've spent my life fighting to keep my head above water, against some rather interesting odds. I've had many challenges, and I think it might be nice to one day not have to be the one who does all the struggling, so therein lies the answer to my wishful thinking. The few times I think like that, I remind myself of the price to be paid for wallowing in that fantasy. I've made the mistake of going there on occasion in my romantic history, and after a few decades of being slapped for it I'm now fully conscious of that price. I always have much less of a fight to keep my head above water when I count only on myself to keep me afloat.
What I really need, if I ever have another serious relationship, is someone who is capable of running their own life, and someone who has my back that I can fully trust to be there for me emotionally, but not someone who tries to take over the running of my life. Decisions can be made mutually, compromises are perfectly fine, and acceptance of who I really am is mandatory. That last thing is so vital, though, and very few people are actually capable of acceptance when it comes to their life partner. Especially when their life partner has some unusual quirks.
Speaking from personal experience, there are very few people in the world who accept the fact that I sleep during the day, and that has always been my natural pattern. Never mind the fact that I crack every joint in my body, and swear like the proverbial sailor. I can be harsh, too. I'm not unforgiving, but there are people I've removed from my life because I also don't forget. My mother and step-father are good examples. I may have forgiven the fact that my mother left me when I was four years old, and knowingly left me in the care of monsters - her parents. I could never forget it, though. I could never forget the fact that she suspected my grandfather of molesting me, and still left me there. Two deep betrayals that made it impossible for me to ever trust her, or allow myself to love her. The childish yearnings for motherly love disappeared within me forever. I do not want any kind of mother in my life. My step-father turned out to be a faithless jerk who fooled around on my mother, and that shows me a character flaw so important to me that I could never trust him either.
So, I can forgive, but when a person shows their colours you can't simply forget about them. You have to factor those flaws into the big picture. In some cases a person's flaws make them more human and lovable. There's a quote from the movie Hellboy that says, "You like someone for their qualities, but you love them for their flaws," and I think that's very true. Perfect people aren't even very likeable, never mind lovable. There is too much envy involved when another person is 'perfect,' along with self-consciousness because we know we aren't perfect. Of course, no one is actually perfect, but sometimes a person views another unrealistically as being being perfect.
Maybe my imperfections will be lovable to someone some day. I hope so. For the most part I'm content with my life, and I could probably be content to be alone for the remainder of it. It's not really what I want if I'm being honest with myself. If I wanted to be alone, I wouldn't feel sad after reading books like Twilight. I wouldn't have registered with an online dating site a year ago - a profile that I deleted when I started dating someone exclusively. I haven't done a new profile yet because I'm just not ready to start up with a stranger again, and it takes a long time to really get to know someone enough to love them - either on the basis of friendship, or on romantic love. Attraction comes instantly, as does infatuation, but the kind of love where you would notice someone was missing from your life if they weren't there...that takes time. Starting a brand new relationship with a stranger is not something I've got the time or energy for right now.
I was talking to a friend about how holding hands with someone can feel weird, and he said that if I was madly in love with them then I would probably want to. He's right. I would. I would feel the need for physical closeness. I'm actually very affectionate that way when I love someone, or even when I'm in a romantic relationship where I really like them. It's the only kind of relationship where I can be really touchy-feely. I can hug my daughter, but neither of us likes hugging very much so it only happens on occasions like birthdays, or when there's a death of one of our pets. When I lost Stimpy (my first ferret), I think my daughter was afraid to hug me, because I was already falling to pieces. Getting comfort when you're like that can sometimes be just enough to break you. The stiff upper lip starts to quiver, and then you're a blubbering mess.
Back to the topic at hand, however. Obsessive love and stalking are so prevalent in all forms of media that it has become absorbed almost to our cores. I think almost everyone I know has that little piece inside them that wishes they could have that. I'm sure I'm not alone there, or how would the writers of romantic fiction ever make any money? Rom-coms wouldn't make a penny at the box office, either. Men are told to be persistent, despite the fact that it's actually harassment to keep going after a woman who says no. It's part of the rape culture. Men are rewarded for persistence by eventually getting their rocks off, even if it's not consensual - often because the woman gets tired of being harassed and gives in to what she starts thinking is inevitable.
Romance novels used to be called 'bodice rippers' for a good reason. Almost every book involved rape in some form or another - usually a man was 'pushed beyond reason' into 'giving her what she really wants.' Apparently forcing a woman into sex solved all relationship problems - yes, that was sarcasm. This was only twenty years ago, and despite the fact that publishers are telling would-be authors that they don't want that kind of book, they're still publishing books about very unhealthy relationships. I actually wrote a historical romance many years ago. It sits (completed) in a box somewhere. It will never be published under my own name, because I will never allow myself to be pigeon-holed as a romance writer. Once that happens you're rarely seen as any other kind of writer.
A good example is Nora Roberts. Under her own name she writes romances. Under the pseudonym of J. D. Robb she writes what's called the 'in death' series. All but one title uses the words 'in death,' such as, "Naked in Death" and "Glory in Death." The books' main character is a female kick-ass cop in the future. For a long time, because it was known to be a pseudonym of Nora Roberts, those books were always put in the romance section of every book store I went into. There are romantic relationships within the series, but the books are mainly about the main character being a homicide cop. They're murder-mysteries, and yet they were labeled as romance. Now when I go in the book store, though, they're finally filed under the main fiction section. I haven't seen them in the romance section for quite a while, but it still took a long time for the series to be recognized for what it really was.
Another reason I don't think I'll submit my romance novel for publication is that I'm rather ashamed of it. I'm just as guilty of writing anti-feminist crap as any other romance writer. I would have to cut and slash the novel to ribbons in order to fix the problem. I don't want to be another Stephanie Meyer, creating mentally ill characters for people (particularly teenagers) to emulate. I would prefer to be responsible with my writing and portray women as something other than helpless victims to their own ineptitude. So, despite my (not-so-secret-now) wishing that I might have that sort of unhealthy connection with a man, I know better than to fall for it. I can only hope that most teenagers will outgrow their interest in the series.
Maybe there's an antidote. Maybe one day I'll write about the kind of relationship that's real and healthy. Two people dedicated and devoted to one another, without having to give up who they are. People who don't orient themselves to their partners to the exclusion of all else in their lives. Now that would be a relationship worth emulating. They say, "Write what you know," though, and I have no personal experience from which to draw.
Monday, 4 November 2013
Beyond My Wildest Dreams, By Any Name
As mentioned in other blog posts, I'm 42 years old. I've been through three marriages, spectacularly failing at them all. At my age I had serious doubts that I would even find a relationship that would work for me. However, a good friend of mine gave me a kick in the ass a number of weeks ago and told me I shouldn't give up on relationships and love, or blame myself for the fact that I hadn't done so well on the marriage front. Since he knows a lot about my personal history, including a really rough childhood, he told me with some knowledge and authority that I was just doing what I needed to do at the time, in order to find what I needed in my life. I took those words to heart, and despite a hiccup or two I ended up finding success with online dating.
I say success (though there are no guarantees) because I found something I think is pretty incredible. Almost miraculous, in fact. Not just something, but someone, with whom I seem to have everything I ever wanted or needed. My only problem is that I can't get enough of being around him.
When people talk about love and relationships everyone has their own ideas of what would be the best for them, and what they value most in a potential partner. Some want companionship more than they want anything else. Some want lots of sexual chemistry. Some want a potential spouse and/or someone to have children with. None of these things are necessarily right or wrong - they're simply what we feel we need.
I'm not sure I really knew what I was looking for in a partner; I just knew there were a lot of things about me that a man would need to accept. I have a strange lifestyle, much akin to that of a vampire from what I've been told, and it's not something I can change - nor would I want to.
There are so many things I didn't know I needed, though, and so many more things I didn't realize were even possible. For example, I had no idea that I could be truly calm just lying in someone's arms, despite having chemistry that brings me to my knees (I mean figuratively at the moment, just in case there are perverts other than myself who are reading this). I've never been able to turn off my brain and just relax while being held, but now I don't even have to make an effort at it. I didn't know I could talk to someone for 8 or 9 hours in a day, or spend 12 hours in their company and the two of us would still be talking. I didn't know I could be held and know without a doubt that I was really wanted there.
I guess what I didn't know was that I could really focus on someone, to the point where I'm not thinking about the million other things I need (or want) to be doing. I began living in the moment, because the moment became vital.
Something else slammed into my consciousness within the last 24 hours. It was a confidence I didn't know I could achieve. Like so many people I see the physical flaws in myself far more vividly than others see them. I found myself able to make jokes about them, knowing they just didn't matter. Suddenly years of self-consciousness about certain things evaporated and I said to hell with it - I wasn't going to let those things be anything other than a punchline. It wasn't a conscious effort, though. It just came from hearing the right words at the right time, from the one person I needed to hear them from. Not that real confidence comes from someone else - it's more that the words made me think, and then something shifted inside of me.
When you can be with someone and really feel that the 'worst' things about you are not the glaring issues you thought they were, it's an unbelievable gift that can never be taken away - no matter what the future holds.
I had no idea how important it was to me to find someone capable of comforting me, either. Having lived so long without that, it never occurred to me that I should expect it, so I guess I didn't allowed myself to want that from a partner. I actually got some bad news a couple of weeks ago, when I discovered that I might have been responsible for the death of my ferret. I had no idea how seriously my actions would impact him, and it devastated me. Nearly 7 months after his death I still grieve for Stimpy every single day, and to learn that I might have killed him with my ignorance was a devastating blow. Instead of being shrugged off when I needed a shoulder, though, somehow I was given exactly the words I needed to hear, again from the one person I needed to hear them from. He took away so much pain with a single sentence. I doubt he even knows the impact he had on me at that moment.
Love isn't a declaration given to you in three words. Love is what is breathed into a relationship at every significant moment. It's there when it is needed. Love is when you can't keep your hands off of someone even when sex isn't the intention - you just need to touch them. Actions are love. Love is the way you live within a relationship. It's just there. Being cherished, respected and accepted is something you can feel. Three words can't express or contain what love is meant to be. People say it all the time, without living it.
Finding someone who makes you feel like this begs the question, "Why couldn't I have found you years ago?" In my case I know the answer to that question. Some things have to happen just the way they happen. Life prepares us for these moments so that we can see them when they come to us. Some of us learn the lessons early, and some don't. Until we learn the lessons, though, we don't recognize what may be right before us. Twenty years ago I looked for completely different things. The choices I made twenty years ago were the wrong ones, but nothing would have derailed those choices without me experiencing the results. I made the same choices over and over, getting the same result. Finally I changed what I was doing. What I looked for was completely different, and lo and behold I found it.
Even five years ago I would never have been wise enough, or experienced enough in my own life, to value what's important to me now - the things that I've found that make me so happy. At that time (for the first time in my life) I wasn't running from one relationship to the next. For once I took time away from all that to live and be quiet within myself. I didn't need company, because I enjoyed my own. I was as surprised as anyone else when I signed up for a dating site a while ago. I knew I was ready to be involved with someone again, but whether or not I was ready for the dating world was another issue altogether. I can only be grateful I didn't have to endure that many first dates before I found the man I had learned to look for. Everything I get from our relationship beyond that can not be trivialized as icing on the proverbial cake, though. They aren't mere fluff to decorate the surface of our relationship; they're vitally important even if I didn't know I needed them.
It's a beautiful thing to feel utterly safe with someone; safe in the way that you can share details of your soul and know those secrets will be respected. Being safe with someone can open up the floodgates of our emotions. We can bring things to the light of day that we never dared express before, and shining a light on them can be a huge relief when we see they aren't as dark as we thought they were. Fear of judgment is no longer an issue. You know your secrets will not be used against you at a later date.
No matter what happens, my world has been rocked. Just knowing that these things are possible has made a permanent change in how I look at relationships. Life is like that, though - if you allow it to be. It teaches you new and wonderful things all the time. You just have to be open to the possibilities.
I say success (though there are no guarantees) because I found something I think is pretty incredible. Almost miraculous, in fact. Not just something, but someone, with whom I seem to have everything I ever wanted or needed. My only problem is that I can't get enough of being around him.
When people talk about love and relationships everyone has their own ideas of what would be the best for them, and what they value most in a potential partner. Some want companionship more than they want anything else. Some want lots of sexual chemistry. Some want a potential spouse and/or someone to have children with. None of these things are necessarily right or wrong - they're simply what we feel we need.
I'm not sure I really knew what I was looking for in a partner; I just knew there were a lot of things about me that a man would need to accept. I have a strange lifestyle, much akin to that of a vampire from what I've been told, and it's not something I can change - nor would I want to.
There are so many things I didn't know I needed, though, and so many more things I didn't realize were even possible. For example, I had no idea that I could be truly calm just lying in someone's arms, despite having chemistry that brings me to my knees (I mean figuratively at the moment, just in case there are perverts other than myself who are reading this). I've never been able to turn off my brain and just relax while being held, but now I don't even have to make an effort at it. I didn't know I could talk to someone for 8 or 9 hours in a day, or spend 12 hours in their company and the two of us would still be talking. I didn't know I could be held and know without a doubt that I was really wanted there.
I guess what I didn't know was that I could really focus on someone, to the point where I'm not thinking about the million other things I need (or want) to be doing. I began living in the moment, because the moment became vital.
Something else slammed into my consciousness within the last 24 hours. It was a confidence I didn't know I could achieve. Like so many people I see the physical flaws in myself far more vividly than others see them. I found myself able to make jokes about them, knowing they just didn't matter. Suddenly years of self-consciousness about certain things evaporated and I said to hell with it - I wasn't going to let those things be anything other than a punchline. It wasn't a conscious effort, though. It just came from hearing the right words at the right time, from the one person I needed to hear them from. Not that real confidence comes from someone else - it's more that the words made me think, and then something shifted inside of me.
When you can be with someone and really feel that the 'worst' things about you are not the glaring issues you thought they were, it's an unbelievable gift that can never be taken away - no matter what the future holds.
I had no idea how important it was to me to find someone capable of comforting me, either. Having lived so long without that, it never occurred to me that I should expect it, so I guess I didn't allowed myself to want that from a partner. I actually got some bad news a couple of weeks ago, when I discovered that I might have been responsible for the death of my ferret. I had no idea how seriously my actions would impact him, and it devastated me. Nearly 7 months after his death I still grieve for Stimpy every single day, and to learn that I might have killed him with my ignorance was a devastating blow. Instead of being shrugged off when I needed a shoulder, though, somehow I was given exactly the words I needed to hear, again from the one person I needed to hear them from. He took away so much pain with a single sentence. I doubt he even knows the impact he had on me at that moment.
Love isn't a declaration given to you in three words. Love is what is breathed into a relationship at every significant moment. It's there when it is needed. Love is when you can't keep your hands off of someone even when sex isn't the intention - you just need to touch them. Actions are love. Love is the way you live within a relationship. It's just there. Being cherished, respected and accepted is something you can feel. Three words can't express or contain what love is meant to be. People say it all the time, without living it.
Finding someone who makes you feel like this begs the question, "Why couldn't I have found you years ago?" In my case I know the answer to that question. Some things have to happen just the way they happen. Life prepares us for these moments so that we can see them when they come to us. Some of us learn the lessons early, and some don't. Until we learn the lessons, though, we don't recognize what may be right before us. Twenty years ago I looked for completely different things. The choices I made twenty years ago were the wrong ones, but nothing would have derailed those choices without me experiencing the results. I made the same choices over and over, getting the same result. Finally I changed what I was doing. What I looked for was completely different, and lo and behold I found it.
Even five years ago I would never have been wise enough, or experienced enough in my own life, to value what's important to me now - the things that I've found that make me so happy. At that time (for the first time in my life) I wasn't running from one relationship to the next. For once I took time away from all that to live and be quiet within myself. I didn't need company, because I enjoyed my own. I was as surprised as anyone else when I signed up for a dating site a while ago. I knew I was ready to be involved with someone again, but whether or not I was ready for the dating world was another issue altogether. I can only be grateful I didn't have to endure that many first dates before I found the man I had learned to look for. Everything I get from our relationship beyond that can not be trivialized as icing on the proverbial cake, though. They aren't mere fluff to decorate the surface of our relationship; they're vitally important even if I didn't know I needed them.
It's a beautiful thing to feel utterly safe with someone; safe in the way that you can share details of your soul and know those secrets will be respected. Being safe with someone can open up the floodgates of our emotions. We can bring things to the light of day that we never dared express before, and shining a light on them can be a huge relief when we see they aren't as dark as we thought they were. Fear of judgment is no longer an issue. You know your secrets will not be used against you at a later date.
No matter what happens, my world has been rocked. Just knowing that these things are possible has made a permanent change in how I look at relationships. Life is like that, though - if you allow it to be. It teaches you new and wonderful things all the time. You just have to be open to the possibilities.
Wednesday, 16 October 2013
The Love Stops Here...No Here! Now Where the Hell am I?
When we talk about love in a new relationship we often use the term 'falling in love' and it's a bit of a misnomer. Falling implies a drastic ending to the process, possibly resulting in a gruesome death or grotesque injury. To be fair that's occasionally true, but we'll try not to dwell on that.
As I was out walking today, grinning like an idiot because my head is kind of in the clouds these days, it occurred to me that the implication of falling in love is that (somewhere along the line) we know exactly when it becomes love, and that it doesn't go past that line. Is there a switch? What's the defining moment where you say, "Eureka - I've found it," and happily begin plotting a nefarious future with your partner in crime?
The reality of love is more that you continue falling for a really long time. I'd have to say that the day you stop falling into love is the day you start falling out of it. The longer we go on with a partner, the more we learn about them. We're not always going to like everything we learn, and it would be beyond tedious if we did, but we can only hope that the things we learn keep turning us on, rather than off.
The one recognizable point might be when we realize we can't imagine a life without the other person in it. We can feel this way about friends, too, but certain differences are obvious...like sex. Still, that point of true friendship is a bit of a key, I think. I've had relationships where I wasn't friends with the person I was in love with, though, and that's probably the reason the relationship didn't work. To be honest, I'm not sure I ever had a partner where they were my best friend at the time the relationship was going on - there was too much competition and combativeness, with a power struggle thrown in to really make things entertaining. I've had friends turn into lovers where the friendship disappeared, and I've had lovers turn into friends when the romance disappeared.
Well, I want the whole package now. I might actually get it, too, considering the whole 'head in the clouds' thing, but that's neither here nor there when it comes to this post. We're not really talking specifically about my love life, but rather an idea and understanding about the true nature of loving someone. A question has arisen in my mind, and as always it must be explored and answered. I'm kind of like a terrier that way - I just can't leave things alone once I sink my teeth into them. Throw in the corpses of relationships-past and we're stuck with a pretty gross image, but I still want my answers.
I'd say we don't really fall in love, but maybe drift into it and sometimes through it. The further we go toward the middle, the denser it gets, but if we're just passing through a portion of it we never really get the whole effect. It would be nice if we could always travel the longest distance through it, because it would be enough to keep a relationship going for a lifetime. Then there are the relationships that aren't on a linear projection at all, and veer sharply in one direction or another - like when a person cheats on a partner. They might have been swimming along nicely when suddenly one of them needs an ego boost that collides with a pretty, flirtatious face, or a handsomely formed bicep.
Let's go back to the part with the infatuation stuff. When we're young, and sometimes we never rid ourselves of this behaviour, we often cherish our rose-coloured glasses to the point of idiocy. The person you're mad about slammed their car into another one because the other driver ticked them off? Hey, no problem! They were just having an off day. Your crush is someone you met at the bar and they're considered a regular there? Oh, that's okay. Once they settle down all that will change. [Please note that I am holding up a very large sarcasm sign with flashing neon and a strobe light.] Apparently we all look pretty through pink lenses.
Often that infatuation stage is what we call 'falling in love' and it does imply that we haven't reach the love part yet. How true that is! You don't actually know the other person beyond your own perception of them. You haven't been slapped out of your delusions yet. It's very easy to pretend everything is perfect, because that's how we really want it to be. On the other hand some of us prefer a cold shower of reality as soon as humanly possible. It's a lot less painful in the end. We don't necessarily decide to end a relationship because of the reality, but at least we know what we're getting into.
Maybe you're wondering why this is important to me, which is a fair question. It's not simply that I'm facing these things at the moment, but also that I'd really like to make sure I don't screw things up in the future. I've made plenty of mistakes, and certainly have no trouble owning up to that, but if I don't look for my own answers as to why that happened...well...like history I am doomed to repeat it.
As I was out walking today, grinning like an idiot because my head is kind of in the clouds these days, it occurred to me that the implication of falling in love is that (somewhere along the line) we know exactly when it becomes love, and that it doesn't go past that line. Is there a switch? What's the defining moment where you say, "Eureka - I've found it," and happily begin plotting a nefarious future with your partner in crime?
The reality of love is more that you continue falling for a really long time. I'd have to say that the day you stop falling into love is the day you start falling out of it. The longer we go on with a partner, the more we learn about them. We're not always going to like everything we learn, and it would be beyond tedious if we did, but we can only hope that the things we learn keep turning us on, rather than off.
The one recognizable point might be when we realize we can't imagine a life without the other person in it. We can feel this way about friends, too, but certain differences are obvious...like sex. Still, that point of true friendship is a bit of a key, I think. I've had relationships where I wasn't friends with the person I was in love with, though, and that's probably the reason the relationship didn't work. To be honest, I'm not sure I ever had a partner where they were my best friend at the time the relationship was going on - there was too much competition and combativeness, with a power struggle thrown in to really make things entertaining. I've had friends turn into lovers where the friendship disappeared, and I've had lovers turn into friends when the romance disappeared.
Well, I want the whole package now. I might actually get it, too, considering the whole 'head in the clouds' thing, but that's neither here nor there when it comes to this post. We're not really talking specifically about my love life, but rather an idea and understanding about the true nature of loving someone. A question has arisen in my mind, and as always it must be explored and answered. I'm kind of like a terrier that way - I just can't leave things alone once I sink my teeth into them. Throw in the corpses of relationships-past and we're stuck with a pretty gross image, but I still want my answers.
I'd say we don't really fall in love, but maybe drift into it and sometimes through it. The further we go toward the middle, the denser it gets, but if we're just passing through a portion of it we never really get the whole effect. It would be nice if we could always travel the longest distance through it, because it would be enough to keep a relationship going for a lifetime. Then there are the relationships that aren't on a linear projection at all, and veer sharply in one direction or another - like when a person cheats on a partner. They might have been swimming along nicely when suddenly one of them needs an ego boost that collides with a pretty, flirtatious face, or a handsomely formed bicep.
Let's go back to the part with the infatuation stuff. When we're young, and sometimes we never rid ourselves of this behaviour, we often cherish our rose-coloured glasses to the point of idiocy. The person you're mad about slammed their car into another one because the other driver ticked them off? Hey, no problem! They were just having an off day. Your crush is someone you met at the bar and they're considered a regular there? Oh, that's okay. Once they settle down all that will change. [Please note that I am holding up a very large sarcasm sign with flashing neon and a strobe light.] Apparently we all look pretty through pink lenses.
Often that infatuation stage is what we call 'falling in love' and it does imply that we haven't reach the love part yet. How true that is! You don't actually know the other person beyond your own perception of them. You haven't been slapped out of your delusions yet. It's very easy to pretend everything is perfect, because that's how we really want it to be. On the other hand some of us prefer a cold shower of reality as soon as humanly possible. It's a lot less painful in the end. We don't necessarily decide to end a relationship because of the reality, but at least we know what we're getting into.
Maybe you're wondering why this is important to me, which is a fair question. It's not simply that I'm facing these things at the moment, but also that I'd really like to make sure I don't screw things up in the future. I've made plenty of mistakes, and certainly have no trouble owning up to that, but if I don't look for my own answers as to why that happened...well...like history I am doomed to repeat it.
Monday, 14 October 2013
Sexual Choices and the Numbers Game
I finally got a little bit more serious about dating recently. It only took me nearly six years, but I got around to it in the end. I know I've talked about dating, expressing my personal take on a whole list of shenanigans, but it's only been within the last week or so that I really put any kind of effort into it. When you stop to consider that I went on a total of 5 dates in just over 5 years, none of which resulted in a second date, I wasn't exactly tearing through them at the speed of light. I guess it's no surprise then, that I'm not the type to date more than one guy at the same time. In fact, I won't even talk to other potential dates if I'm already talking to someone in that capacity. I'm just not built that way.
So many people treat dating as a numbers game, and it's incredibly easy to do that when you go the route of online dating. After all, you set up a profile that's relatively anonymous, and you aren't forced to date people that live close to you where you might run into someone else you happen to be dating. Plus, you're able to carry on multiple conversations at once and then set up a dating schedule accordingly. Many people do it this way, which is fine for them I suppose but it's just too much work for me. Partly that's an honesty thing. You see, it's not really tactful to tell someone you're meeting three other potential partners that same night (or that week), and that you'll get back to them if there's 'still an opening' (tongue in cheek) when you've picked everyone over.
The alternative is to not say anything at all. While there really isn't an obligation to tell all your secrets to a person you've only had one date with, however, it still feels dishonest to me. It's just far less complicated to my way of thinking, to not have three other dates lined up. Maybe it sounds arrogant, but I'm considered fairly good dating material, so setting up three dates at a time falls under the heading of easy-peasy. To be fair, most women find dates pretty easily. The difficulty has more to do with the quality of dates.
Dating the way I do means that it can take a lot longer to find someone that's okay with waiting more than 24 hours before knocking boots. Whenever I've run into the less than patient ones I've gotten rather discouraged at the state of dating these days and thumbed my nose at it - for a while anyway. I don't consider myself a coward, or a person that gives up easily. Ergo, the dating horse gets ridden again - no, I'm not seeing a horse, though I do have them on my mind these days. You'll have to wait for an explanation on that one, as I do like to keep a few cards close to the vest.
Along with not wanting to treat dating as a numbers game, I have other conflicts. Call me complicated. To start with I'm a feminist who believes in sexual freedom. I feel everyone should have the choice to have sex at whatever point they want to, without being labeled for it. After all, if you want to wait you get labeled a prude usually. If you want to bang on the first date, woah...the word 'slut' rears its ugly head. Now, I'm not all that concerned with the opinions of others when it comes to any of my choices, sexual or otherwise, and if a man doesn't like the choice I make they're not the man for me anyway.
It's interesting to me that I might be labeled a prude because I like to get to know someone first, when I'm rather open-minded when it comes to actually doing the deed. I'm a feisty one. I just don't burn up the sheets with anyone and everyone who gives me an hour of their time. Admittedly there are reasons for that beyond shyness and simply learning to be comfortable with a person. I've got a past that has built certain kinds of walls around me, and those of you who have been reading my blog for some time already know about that past so I won't bore you with a new iteration.
So, if I were to be labeled a prude for waiting to have sex, what do we call a person who jumps into bed with someone and doesn't put any effort or interest into it? Doesn't sound like a hot tamale to me, so I'm not sure why that would be a sought-after prize. Sure, if someone is merely looking to gouge another notch in the bed post that might be adequate. Instant gratification for our desires, however, tends to fall flat. Sometimes anticipation is a far greater aphrodisiac than people can imagine. Not to mention the fact that the anticipation can be heightened by conversations about sex beforehand. If you're at all liberated you can discuss some of the things you enjoy and take out a bit of the awkwardness when you finally do get down to it.
Luckily my own version of the numbers game, wherein I talk to and see one person at a time, seems to have worked out for me. No guarantees, of course, but many hours of phone conversations combined with spending a bit of time together, has so far resulted in a fair bit of intrigue on my part. Guess we're off to the races.
So many people treat dating as a numbers game, and it's incredibly easy to do that when you go the route of online dating. After all, you set up a profile that's relatively anonymous, and you aren't forced to date people that live close to you where you might run into someone else you happen to be dating. Plus, you're able to carry on multiple conversations at once and then set up a dating schedule accordingly. Many people do it this way, which is fine for them I suppose but it's just too much work for me. Partly that's an honesty thing. You see, it's not really tactful to tell someone you're meeting three other potential partners that same night (or that week), and that you'll get back to them if there's 'still an opening' (tongue in cheek) when you've picked everyone over.
The alternative is to not say anything at all. While there really isn't an obligation to tell all your secrets to a person you've only had one date with, however, it still feels dishonest to me. It's just far less complicated to my way of thinking, to not have three other dates lined up. Maybe it sounds arrogant, but I'm considered fairly good dating material, so setting up three dates at a time falls under the heading of easy-peasy. To be fair, most women find dates pretty easily. The difficulty has more to do with the quality of dates.
Dating the way I do means that it can take a lot longer to find someone that's okay with waiting more than 24 hours before knocking boots. Whenever I've run into the less than patient ones I've gotten rather discouraged at the state of dating these days and thumbed my nose at it - for a while anyway. I don't consider myself a coward, or a person that gives up easily. Ergo, the dating horse gets ridden again - no, I'm not seeing a horse, though I do have them on my mind these days. You'll have to wait for an explanation on that one, as I do like to keep a few cards close to the vest.
Along with not wanting to treat dating as a numbers game, I have other conflicts. Call me complicated. To start with I'm a feminist who believes in sexual freedom. I feel everyone should have the choice to have sex at whatever point they want to, without being labeled for it. After all, if you want to wait you get labeled a prude usually. If you want to bang on the first date, woah...the word 'slut' rears its ugly head. Now, I'm not all that concerned with the opinions of others when it comes to any of my choices, sexual or otherwise, and if a man doesn't like the choice I make they're not the man for me anyway.
It's interesting to me that I might be labeled a prude because I like to get to know someone first, when I'm rather open-minded when it comes to actually doing the deed. I'm a feisty one. I just don't burn up the sheets with anyone and everyone who gives me an hour of their time. Admittedly there are reasons for that beyond shyness and simply learning to be comfortable with a person. I've got a past that has built certain kinds of walls around me, and those of you who have been reading my blog for some time already know about that past so I won't bore you with a new iteration.
So, if I were to be labeled a prude for waiting to have sex, what do we call a person who jumps into bed with someone and doesn't put any effort or interest into it? Doesn't sound like a hot tamale to me, so I'm not sure why that would be a sought-after prize. Sure, if someone is merely looking to gouge another notch in the bed post that might be adequate. Instant gratification for our desires, however, tends to fall flat. Sometimes anticipation is a far greater aphrodisiac than people can imagine. Not to mention the fact that the anticipation can be heightened by conversations about sex beforehand. If you're at all liberated you can discuss some of the things you enjoy and take out a bit of the awkwardness when you finally do get down to it.
Luckily my own version of the numbers game, wherein I talk to and see one person at a time, seems to have worked out for me. No guarantees, of course, but many hours of phone conversations combined with spending a bit of time together, has so far resulted in a fair bit of intrigue on my part. Guess we're off to the races.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)