MetaChat - Dame mentions, "[wanting] a real partner."

Crap. I don't know what I was thinking putting that all in the post. Weird. I meant a "more inside". Please, admin, hope me.

posted by kmellis 21 August | 15:34

Thanks! (I'm so embarassed.)

posted by kmellis 21 August | 15:38

Yes.

posted by cali 21 August | 15:44

that worked, no?

posted by amberglow 21 August | 15:48

Well, I mentioned it as an example. And once I did. But I'm very happy with my boy now.

Really, the thing that I find key to seeing him as a real partner is not expecting him to be everything to me. I think I've gone on a bit about my rather negative impressions of monogamy, and in so many ways that is the crux of it to me. We make good partners because we make room for the other to get what s/he needs. (And there's all that nauseating understanding stuff that no one wants to hear about anymore than they want to watch me make out on the subway, say.)

posted by dame 21 August | 15:55

For sure. Half the time I wish I didn't know what you're talking about.

posted by dreamsign 21 August | 15:56

Absolutely. I'm not holding out for some perfect other half but I am definitely looking for someone who is compatible with my particular brand of weirdness. An equal partner. I don't think I've found that person yet. But sometimes I worry that maybe I've passed them by because my idea of what makes an ideal partner is unrealistic.

posted by LeeJay 21 August | 15:59

Nah, not for me. I've got Mr. Puddinghead and all, but I don't really WANT to be that close to anyone. He's a great partner because he gives me that space and it's OK with him, so maybe (now that I think about this) I actually have found him.

posted by puddinghead 21 August | 16:16

kmellis, that comment the faces thread moved me. It seemed such an open, honest statement that it stuck with me for a bit.

Additionally, it's one that I cannot fully relate to on any level beyond intellectual. I don't mean that in a negative, jaded or cynical sense, so much as I simply don't feel the lack of these elements in my life. It feels like being born without a sense of smell. I'm sure I'm missing out on something because the reports from the field read like it's a gangbuster of an experience but it's never sparked anything more than brief curiosity or passing angst in me.

This, perversely, at times makes me wish I wanted something that I don't just to see what the hoopla is about, but I like the life I have too much to upset the apple cart in that direction on a whim.

posted by Frisbee Girl 21 August | 16:26

I'm confused, Frisbee Girl. Are you saying you don't want a partner or that you never want anything you don't have?

posted by dame 21 August | 17:06

I suppose, but the reality of the thing confounds me a little. I do actually know some happy long-term (20 years+) couples, but the whole idea to me at this point is like a foreign country to which I've lost my visa and put aside my passport. After a bad marriage and some pretty spectacularly ill-advised choices in relationships, the thought of a serious partnership (and what would that even look like? I don't know) seems like a relic from childhood, the way I believed when I was 11 that having a horse would make my life perfect.

posted by jokeefe 21 August | 17:10

Frisbee Girl, I spend a significant amount of time critically examining my own motivations for wanting a child. Mostly, I have this fear that the desire is based in narcissism, which would be so unfair to the child and unhealthy for everyone.

But putting aside each of the dark suspicions I have about wanting a child (the typical: a form of immortality, power or control, whatever) there are, I think, some benign core feelings and motivations which are completely genuine. In a nutshell, I want to love someone much more than myself...I want to be responsible for someone more than am I for myself. I feel like I'd be good at being a parent and for that reason alone I should do it. And then I wonder if those reasons are all very narcissistic.

As the years have gone by, the world of the personal has become more and more fundamentally important to me while the world of the abstract less so. Yet, ironically, I spend more of my life in the latter than the former. I don't know if that's an imbalance or not. But the point is that most of the things that meant something to me when I was younger, and most of the things that mean a great deal to most of my peers and, well, everyone--that is, conventional achievement--mean less and less to me. I've reconciled myself to the fact that in most ways I'm very average but in a few ways, intellectually, I'm exceptional yet, even so, that really in the end is of little consequence. As the years go by, more and more all that seems important to me is what will be left in the world from my personal relationships with the people I've known, friends and family and aquaintences. Will I have contributed? "Yes" to that question is really all I want from my life any more. And in that sense, family, particularly as a spouse and as a parent, seems of utmost importance to me.

It really has absolutely nothing to do with cultural conventions and, in fact, I feel almost completely unconstrained by them. Indeed, I've long advocated and considered implementing a group marriage/communal familiar enterprise: complying with our cultural white picket fence expectations means nothing to me and, as a result, the reactionary scorn of "childfree" activism politics is equally alien.

posted by kmellis 21 August | 17:15

I've been single most my adult life, and it's getting to the point now where I'm not even sure I could share myself with anyone. Friends tell me that's a sad depressing thing to feel, but I'm not sure that's right.

We're so conditioned by society to be looking for love that I'm not 100% sure that the human condition requires partnership. Sometimes you're a better person on your own and if wasn't for the constant sympathy (Well, you can bring a friend to the Christmas party) I probably wouldn't obsess about it so much.

b.t.w. If anyone says "You'll find the right person." or "I'm sure there's the perfect girl out there waiting for you." I'll throttle them.

posted by seanyboy 21 August | 17:17

"...I'm not 100% sure that the human condition requires partnership."

I certainly won't agree with the contention that it does. It may. The point is much debated since forever. But it's very oppressive to tell (or, more usually, imply to) someone like yourself that there's something wrong with you because you don't want to pair up and that a relationship is at the core of your search for happiness. Similarly, however, it doesn't seem right to me for people with the opppsite view to condescend or be contemptuous of those who do feel this way about their own lives. Surely we can be tolerant about the variety of ways in which people imagine they wish to shape their lives and search for happiness?

posted by kmellis 21 August | 17:32

I'm all about the tolerance kmellis. Just adding my own personal impressions into the mix.

posted by seanyboy 21 August | 17:38

dame, I fell into a tricky semantic trap I was trying to stay away from: it's not that I'm avoiding a partner relationship, but that I don't feel the lack of one or the drive to get one in order to be happy in life. I've had my share of truly great and incredibly bad relationships and neither extreme has changed my perspective that life can be good with or without them.

As for wanting what I don't have, I'm sure I want more than a few things, but nothing drives me to distraction or keeps me up at night. I have enough sources and outlets for my passion and energy to keep me busy for years to come without complicating things unnecessarily.

However, I do like when people around me identify and connect with the things that drive them, even if I don't share the same sentiment. Honestly searching oneself takes a great deal of courage and fortitude, and the dialogues that result tend to be incredibly interesting.

posted by Frisbee Girl 21 August | 17:47

We are so opposite, it is almost retarded, Frisbee. Really, "complicating things unnecessarily since 1979" ought to be my tagline. (I also don't believe in fruity things and hate San Francisco. I am driven to distraction one ever four and a half minutes, unless I am asleep, in which case it drops to every seven.)

More to the point, I like having a partner because I find most people beyond alienating and having to deal with strangers impossible, so I like having one person I know I can count on. He isn't everything, but having that one easy person counts for so much. So could I live without it, could I even be happy without it? In some ways, sure, but only because I could have close platonic friendship.

I've always suspected that people who could take it or leave it are way more social, so they are comfortable getting what they want from many people and even going through many relationships. For me, the fewer people required for me to have my social needs met, the happier I am. Really, I have like ten friends and I think that's too many.

Um, I have no idea what the point of this is. It's still too hot to actually have coherent ideas.

posted by dame 21 August | 18:25

After reading most of these responses I don't feel like my feelings about this are as odd as I had thought! There are a lot of definitions of happy partnering. In our case, it's more than brother and sister or best friends, but something short of intimacy since I don't like to be that close to anyone. It still works.

posted by puddinghead 21 August | 20:49

I'm all about fruity things, so long as I don't have to drink them. And I hope this doesn't mean that you'll run me out of the city when I finally get my act together and visit NYC again.

But yeah, you hit the nail on the head. My needs for companionship - intellectual, emotional and physical (affection, not sex) - are met by a wide number of relationships, people and activities. It sounds rather shallow when I look at it described as such, but it works well for me and I would drive someone crazy if I expected them to fill all or even a large portion of those roles. I do have a great deal of admiration for the people who can and do follow more traditional lifestyles, though.

posted by Frisbee Girl 21 August | 21:28

I don't know that considering everyone who has a partner traditional is entirely accurate, Frisbee. There are plenty of folks with partners who get shit because they have no intention of being married or cohabiting or because they have open relationships or any number of things. And plenty of them spent years alone to finally hunt down the person who matched, and would have taken loneliness over a bad match, too.

And, no I won't run you out of New York. I might roll my eyes sometimes, though. You're tough, right?

posted by dame 21 August | 22:36

And there's all that nauseating understanding stuff that no one wants to hear about anymore than they want to watch me make out on the subway

which line?

posted by jonmc 21 August | 22:38

We're so conditioned by society to be looking for love that I'm not 100% sure that the human condition requires partnership. Sometimes you're a better person on your own and if wasn't for the constant sympathy (Well, you can bring a friend to the Christmas party) I probably wouldn't obsess about it so much.

Seanyboy, you hit it right on the head, especially about the constant sympathy. Would I like to find my One True Love? Sure. Will it be the end of the world if I never do? Of course not. I think I'd be perfectly happy as the crazy dog lady at the end of the block. ; ) But when I mention this to my friends they are horrified - "No, no, don't talk like that!" It's as if I've just announced plans to become an ax murderer or something. And it's weird, the more I get people telling me I need to find a man, the more I think I should stay without one, just to prove my point. And then in those moments when I do really wish I had someone (yeah there are some) I kind of get annoyed at myself sometimes, just because that goes against the point I am trying to prove. Hey, I never said I had no issues. ; )

posted by sisterhavana 21 August | 22:56

I would never have believed that I could find a good "partner", primarily because I am so incredibly high maintenance. I mean, I'm moody, I'm chaotic, I'm bullheaded...frankly, I can be a handful. ;)

I had a disastrous first marriage...well, the end was a disaster, the beginning was nice, but we were teenagers and stupid...we grew up and hated each other for being in the way of our individual dreams.

My husband now...we've been together for a decade, and while the passion isn't the same as it was when we first met, he's my best friend...and I'm really happy with that. Also, together, we created an amazing child...and I'm so grateful for that. Even on days like today, where the ChaosKid went off on a 2 hour temper tantrum. (Although, I admit I'm glad my husband is there to stop me from hanging a "free kitten" sign on the toddler and putting him in a box by the sidewalk during the temper tantrums.) Hee.

posted by PsychoKitty 21 August | 23:15

I can relate ChaosKitty. Even though I don't have a kid, me and pips have been together for almost a decade now, and the long and short of it is, she knows everything about me and still likes me. That's about as good as it gets. The whole polyamory thing may work out great for some people, but it requires a thick psychic skin that I just don't have. So me and pips will stay "fellow puppies in the box," as she puts it.

posted by jonmc 21 August | 23:23

This is a good post. It has awakened things within me, or made me reaware (if that's even a word). I will digest, and return with my bit.

Once again, good post.

posted by bdave 21 August | 23:27

At least you admit you cling to your monogramy out of fear, jon. (Poke poke poke.)

posted by dame 21 August | 23:29

where exactly did I admit that? Admitting that the costs of a lifestyle may outweigh the benefits for me != fear.

I'm as human as anyone else, I look at and fantasize and even firt with other women, but I'm actually quite happy as a one woman man. Not evryone who doesen't share your lifestyle is deluded, fearful or repressed somehow. I've done the casual hang-loose sex thing (as much as I was able to manage it anyway), it's not my bag. YMMV.

posted by jonmc 21 August | 23:35

Jon, I was making fun of you because you make the exact same argument whenever I mention the thing. I'm not actually going to argue with you. You know what I'll say and so does everyone else. Can you bring some beer over, though?

posted by dame 21 August | 23:38

Yup.... I've been single for nearly six years now, with only a few "interruptions" of very short relationships. I live in a city statistically crawling with gay men, but alas, the particular species dominant in this area generally keeps their thoughts to clothes and sex (both of which are fine, granted). I'm basically an oddball in the local queer community, and would rather remain delightfully off-center and solo than have to preen a superficial image in order to compromise on a mate. Yet the pressures occasionally mount and I go a bit gonzo in waiting for "him" to arrive.
I went to a local blogger meetup with mygothlaundry yesterday and was hoping there might be another geeky queer writer coming out of the woodwork. Alas! I think most of my issue over these past years has been that I'm picky in that I want depth in a partner. I also just don't relate well to many gay men. I guess it might help to tweak that a little. Thanks for the thread kmellis - I needed to vent that a tish.

posted by moonbird 21 August | 23:39

(And also there's the part where I don't understand your weird monogamy-defense crusade, because I don't think the majority of people are interested in dismantling it.)

posted by dame 21 August | 23:40

I just tremendously like being with someone. In the most literal, mundane sense. It's always been more about frienship and companionship than sex, to me.

I have a cousin, a year younger than me, that I was pretty close to growing up. He'd always come and spend a month or so in the summer at my house (he lived out of state). I can vividly recall such an enormous sense of loss when he'd leave--it was like my life was empty. I'd love it when my family would visit, especially my aunt who is only six-years older than me, but I'd dread their leaving and, in fact, would always ask, first thing when someone arrived, "when are you leaving?". Not because I wanted them to, but to prepare myself for it. Or something.

When I've been in live-in relationships, I feel so much more comfortable with someone just being there, someone with whom the two of us share our lives together. When one of these relationships has ended, I've felt very, very sad, very hollow. Exactly like, in fact, I would feel when my cousin would leave, or my aunt would leave.

And this why, too, I think I've had a very hard time getting over the death of my cat eight months ago. I mean, I talked to her and she talked to me and she was there. Now...no one is.

So this is all distinct from the soulmate thing or even just a Really Good Partner thing. This stuff is just about a need for companionship. In contemporary American society, there's some sense that there might be something wrong about that, that's it's necessarily codependent. I don't know. Seems to me that it's quite natural and quite alright for some people to just want to be with another person (or persons) and others, not.

Here's an example of what it means to me to be with another person. I vividly recall my first visit to the Grand Canyon. I was alone. It was wonderful. But I also vividly remember when I took my ex-wife for her first visit. We made it there just as the sun was setting. We sprinted to the rim--which was hidden from view till the last few feet--to see this incomprehensible vision paint itself in front of our eyes. And I watched her face. And she cried. And that, in itself, was wonderful.

posted by kmellis 21 August | 23:44

you're the one "poke, poke"-ing. Don't poke if you don't want a reaction.

Who says I'm on a "crusade." The subject of the thread is finding a true partner. I talked about mine. I also specifically that I'm fine with other people practicing polyamory, just that it's not for me. It's not a value judgement on either of us. why does that bother you so much?

W're all products of our experiences and mine have probably been significantly different from yours. Mine have taught me that at 34 years old, with a lot of things in the rear-veiw mirror, adventures in casual sex are not worth the attendant aggravations. YMMV, as I said.

posted by jonmc 21 August | 23:46

you're the one "poke, poke"-ing. Don't poke if you don't want a reaction.

Fair enough.

why does that bother you so much?

Because arguing for the status quo seems stupid to me. Is there anyone here who doesn't know all the arguments for monogamy by rote? You defend something that needs no defense unless it is a question of values. Because it is in no danger. Also because you misunderstand what you claim to be against. (For instance equating nonmonagamy with casual sex.)

posted by dame 21 August | 23:52

"And also there's the part where I don't understand your weird monogamy-defense crusade, because I don't think the majority of people are interested in dismantling it."

To be fair, dame, it really depends upon the demographics of one's friends, doesn't it? I've had (and have) friends among whom one really is going to be in a defensive position with regard to the subject of monogamy (dammit, I want a better word). In the wider USAian social context, of course, this isn't the case. But there well may be people close to jonmc who are very critical.

posted by kmellis 21 August | 23:54

Moonbird, you sound a bit like my best friend, also a gay man, who--aside from an inherent emotional aversion to intimacy--has trouble meeting men with whom he'd seriously date because he doesn't quite fit in. He does, however, fit in fine with regard to hooking up, which he does a lot, thus making it easier to avoid resolving his problems finding a more meaningful relationship. Mind you, he really and truly would like something like that and is aware of and rues his intimacy problems. Of course, many other people don't want a serious relationship, and that's perfectly fine. But it's interesting to me that there are ways in which gay men have a particular set of problems with regard to forming long-term committed partnerships.

Sometimes I've thought I'd be happy to trade his problems for mine because, at least, I'd be getting laid regularly. More seriously, I really want him to be happy and not a month goes by that I don't wish he would meet that special person.

posted by kmellis 21 August | 23:55

Alas! I think most of my issue over these past years has been that I'm picky in that I want depth in a partner. I also just don't relate well to many gay men.
Hey, we have depth! most people do actually. I think maybe you're (mistakenly and, ironically, shallowly) judging people as shallow based on their appearance.

posted by amberglow 21 August | 23:56

Thanks, bdave, I was terribly nervous after posting it. I'm far more emotionally vulnerable in this thread than I would like to be among the mefi crowd. It's nice that the thread seems to be well-received.

posted by kmellis 21 August | 23:59

Because arguing for the status quo seems stupid to me.

So's being against something simply because it is conventional. But you're still young enough to believe that you're the first person to have these ideas. You'll get over it. Living an ordinary life is only a sign of narrow-mindedness or fear if one dosen't try out or at least consider alternatives. Which I assure you I have.

You defend something that needs no defense

I know that monogamy is in no danger. I was defnding against the idea that anyone who lives a monogamous life is doing so out of fear, which you did imply.

And who says I'm "against," polyamory. I simply choose not to particiapate. Everyone can do whatever they want without fear of censure from me.

posted by jonmc 22 August | 00:00

jonmc, I don't really see what dame said that was so provocative. God knows, I'm quite surprised to write that sentence. :)

posted by kmellis 22 August | 00:07

Interesting post, kmellis. I have to say that I have never ever had a thought about getting a "partner" or even a boyfriend, back in the day, but somehow I ended up with one of the most conventional lifestyles here :) Married at 29, and intending to be married and monogamous for the duration.

I'm not really one for introspection, or having a philosophy of the way I should live my life. All I know is that neither my husband nor I had any intention of marrying (anyone) when we met, and we are constantly kind of baffled as to how we ended up married (no green card jokes, please).

I totally agree that you can be happy without a long-term life partner. That thought is not scary at all. I guess I just kind of accidentally met someone I'd rather be with than not. hrrmmmm. Damn you for making me think about things!

posted by gaspode 22 August | 00:07

"I think I've gone on a bit about my rather negative impressions of monogamy, and in so many ways that is the crux of it to me. We make good partners because we make room for the other to get what s/he needs."

My thoughts and advocacy for some kind of group marriage is built upon pragmatic assumptions about the truth of what you write above. I'm inclined to think that it's unlikely that a very long-term pairing will meet both people's needs.

The other half of my thinking about group marriage is about the welfare of the children (around which my proposed scheme is primarily organized).

But I've thought in terms of, say, six people or so. Different people can play different roles in terms of the practical needs of the household, but also in terms of the emotional needs of the household. It's a nice thought to consider that someone could take a sabbatical, for example. At any one time it's unlikely that a single person will meet all the relationship needs of another single person--even less so over long lengths of time. But a compatible mix of people? Might work.

I dunno. It's a shame we are so constrained by social convention. Not that I am...but that's not much consolation in this context.

posted by kmellis 22 August | 00:19

that would be a commune, no?

posted by amberglow 22 August | 00:31

Jon, I have never been against something merely because it is conventional. That you think I am that shallow really inceses me. Given that, I'd best leave my response to that.

posted by dame 22 August | 01:17

Actually, no, I take that back. That isn't enough.

Living an ordinary life is only a sign of narrow-mindedness or fear if one dosen't try out or at least consider alternatives. Which I assure you I have.

Yeah. And I have made that point to you IN PERSON within the last month. Do you not listen when I talk to you? SOME people (some people who I know, in fact) pretty brazenly admit that they are with their one monogamous partner out of fear. Or because they "couldn't handle the jealousy," which is fear: fear that someone is going to take away or otherwise deprive you of something you adore or desperately want. Is that everyone's situation? No, but of course I ALREADY ADMITTED THAT.

You know what's really offenseive though, Mr. I Understand Everyone Wisdom Pants? Pulling the stupid "you'll understand when you're older" bullshit. Not because you're wrong that sometimes it takes age to see things (a point that I have indicated I am aware of), but because it guarantees that the person you are talking to absolutely will not listen to whatever you are about to say.

But of course you know that, jonmc, man of the people, so busy puncturing other people's balloons that he cannot see when he is being a giant jackass. Hope that was for for you, though.

posted by dame 22 August | 01:39

i have a pug:
≡ Click to see image ≡

posted by quonsar 22 August | 01:39

Well, this thread has taken on an interesting direction, for certain! I've got some other work to do on an immediate basis, but, dame, I feel the need to address a couple of things:

I don't know that considering everyone who has a partner traditional is entirely accurate, Frisbee.

I'm hard pressed to find where I either outright said or implied that sentiment.

There are plenty of folks with partners who get shit because they have no intention of being married or cohabiting or because they have open relationships or any number of things. And plenty of them spent years alone to finally hunt down the person who matched, and would have taken loneliness over a bad match, too.

This is also true and I don't see where I gave the impression or stated that I think otherwise. If I did, please show me how and where I did so that I can correct the language. If not, I'm feeling more than a little wary of statements being attributed to me that I did not make.

posted by Frisbee Girl 22 August | 02:35

We each reap what we sow in terms of the personas we present as ourselves and the stereotypes we assign to others.

posted by kmellis 22 August | 02:41

Ok, I'm completely lost here now. kmellis, what persona have I presented and what stereotype have I assigned?

Really. I'm not getting it, as I felt that I've done anything but present any 'persona' beyond that which you'd get face to face when you meet me and then know for years on end; let alone assign stereotypes. I merely laid out a couple of extremes and without value statements, then noted what I personally identified with and pointed out what seemed foreign was still something I could understand and respect or admire.

Is this so reprehensible?

posted by Frisbee Girl 22 August | 02:59

Was not referring to you. But to both dame and jonmc, to be honest. Was being oblique to be diplomatic. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

posted by kmellis 22 August | 05:04

Oh what a tangled thread ye weave.

I'm tempted to intercede here jonmc and dame but I won't. I sincerely like to hear what's in both of your minds and that's certainly not to say that I agree with either of you about everything. I guess I like it sometimes when people share but usually less when people criticize.

I've found I long for freedom in relationships and I long for stability with a special someone when I'm not. I am presently in the latter category and I tend to regard the former attitude as stemming from having hooked up with the wrong (well that's not the right word, I don't regret past relationships to all intents and purposes) person. I'm not jaded but when alone it's a little difficult to psychically console oneself with the 'fate will work it all out' kind of thinking.

I do find however that as I get older I get a little bit more scared during the alone times. (of what, I know not) While I suppose my history suggests a serial monogamist I don't think I've got a preconceived notion of any particular happy balance of physical and mental interplay but I tend to think that longevity with one SO has more to offer than could a casual string.

And if that makes any sense, someone explain it back to me.

So if there's any interested ladies out there, who aren't separated from me by 5,000-odd miles of ocean, drop me a line ;- )

posted by peacay 22 August | 07:13

kmellis, misunderstanding cleared. quonsar, I think I have a crush on the pug.

posted by Frisbee Girl 22 August | 08:17

Metachat: I think I have a crush on the pug.

posted by dreamsign 22 August | 08:31

Jeez, in the cold light of day, it does look like I overreacted a bit. It had been a long day that included watching a bunch of preteens doing a frighteningly in-sync dance to "Cotton Eyed Joe," and a long hot muggy train ride.

I was reacting to the implications that I percieved, which you say you weren't making, and I'll take your word for that, so sorry.

I do however still stand by my point about age changing you. The 34 year old jonmc is a lot more compassionate and less know-it-all than the 24-year-old one, but it seems that you acknowledge these things too.

Or because they "couldn't handle the jealousy,"

Just for the record, it isn't jealousy that turned me off to the whole proposition. i'm not gonna give you my life story, but suffice it to say that my adventures in non-monogamous sex left me feeling worse rather than better about myself, in fact they left me feeling almost worthless. But my life isn't everyone's.

posted by jonmc 22 August | 09:47

I used to be seriously into the idea of a soulmate, but now, 20 years or so on, I much prefer a relationship that allows me large chunks of time alone. I don't know if that's old age or creeping cynicism or evolving self-reliance or what.

posted by JanetLand 22 August | 10:14

Hmm peacay, I am separated from mine by expanses of sea and land.

I am having a love/hate relationship with this thread. So many things to say, a feeling of not wanting to say them, and a questioning of myself as to why.

Still a great post. Still shutting the fuck up about everything.

posted by bdave 22 August | 10:50

Frisbee, this whole post:

ut yeah, you hit the nail on the head. My needs for companionship - intellectual, emotional and physical (affection, not sex) - are met by a wide number of relationships, people and activities. It sounds rather shallow when I look at it described as such, but it works well for me and I would drive someone crazy if I expected them to fill all or even a large portion of those roles. I do have a great deal of admiration for the people who can and do follow more traditional lifestyles, though.

implies it, I think. You say I am like these things, but all those traditional folk are okay too, and that implies to me everything not me, just by its construction. I'm sorry you felt that was putting words in your mouth, but that is how I read that construction.

posted by dame 22 August | 11:21

I've been married twice, had several fairly long term live in relationships, been the prom queen belle of the ball, and even been the Other Woman. I broke some hearts, had mine broken several times - that was then. Now, I've been pretty much completely single for five years. Except for the two kids and the two dogs and the two cats.

There are times (notably once a month) where I get all wigged out over being single and I think I'll die alone in my dumpster behind the Waffle House and I think I might be getting skin cancer on my back but since nobody ever sees me naked it will not be discovered until it's Too Late. Being celibate gets tiresome, to put it mildly. Being alone all the time and not having anyone to take to the party can bring you down. But on the other hand nobody interferes with my life or complains about how I live or wants me to compromise and do things I don't want to do.

I think I'd like to give relationships one more shot - I think I'd like to try having somebody around. I get lonely. A lot of things would be easier if there was somebody. But it doesn't seem to be happening. I'm independent as hell and I need a lot of space and I speak my mind and (this may be the clincher) I'm scared, because I don't want to be hurt again or hurt anyone, so I have big walls in place. That, combined with the kids & dogs & poverty & stuff, makes most guys flee pretty quickly. So it's beginning to seem quite possible that I won't ever have another boyfriend. Which is also okay. Except for the back cancer thing.

posted by mygothlaundry 22 August | 11:33

I was reacting to the implications that I percieved, which you say you weren't making, and I'll take your word for that, so sorry.

Well, I'm sorry for losing my temper. I've found it again. I think it bothers me more than someone else misinterpreting because, like I said, I've had that conversation with you. Kmellis can go on misunderstanding because he lives with Dick Cheney in some hidden bunker and has no clue, but you I figure know better.

Anyway, yesterday was hot and disgusting and I can appreciate what that could do to anyone.

I do however still stand by my point about age changing you.

And you're right. But please trust me, as the inevitable younger party in nearly every fried and other ship I've been in, putting anything in the "you'll understand when you're older mold" is guaranteed to make your advice go over poorly.

posted by dame 22 August | 11:38

putting anything in the "you'll understand when you're older mold" is guaranteed to make your advice go over poorly.

indeed.
and personally, I am possibly more of an asshole now than I was ten years ago, so.

this is a really interesting thread, thanks everybody.
and quonsar: nice dog.

posted by matteo 22 August | 11:43

and mygothlaundry: buy two mirrors, put them one in front of the other, you'll self-inspect your back just fine.

that, or let dr. quonsar examine you by webcam. I suggest the two mirrors, though.

posted by matteo 22 August | 11:45

dame, I can somewhat see where you picked up the implication. I apologize for giving you the impression that I feel you are 'like these things' as that statement eclipsed the basic FG/dame exchange and was more geared to a broader scope of individuals. Truth is, I don't know exactly what you're like as I don't know you and the details are sparse, at best. The fleshing out of the picture remains to be seen and it seems more than a little presumptuous, if not outright arrogant, to apply definitions before a reasonable amount of information is available.

I do, however, feel safe saying that a number of people with whom I am very close and have known for more than twenty years, do have more traditional lifestyles/partner relationships. Ultimately, my intent was to point out one choice of lifestyle that is not conducive to my personality and not one that I emulate, but one that I do admire. For no other reason, than to say that I can see how *this* over *here* could & does work and circumvent seeming the postergirl for alternative lifestyles. I mean, it's not exactly a state secret that I'd just like everyone to be happy, but it's less a gesture borne of utopic altruism so much as a real desire for people to quit their bitching and get down to the real business of living, already.

So...yeah...I was jus' sayin'.

And, mygoth, no back cancer for you, please!

On preview, matteo owes me $4 buck for the chai I just choked on.

posted by Frisbee Girl 22 August | 12:23

Oh, the other thing I meant to say: peacay, for some of us, criticism is love. We don't want you saying silly things in public, so we work on making sure they aren't silly at home. Love, damn you, love!

posted by dame 22 August | 12:31

I seem to tumble through monogamy punctuated by short sweet nothings...

I am relearning to sleep alone and returning to the couch surfing circuit again at the same time right now...

posted by Schyler523 22 August | 12:37

It's reassuring to know that other people see the world the same way you do. I guess the opposite is true, that it's troubling to most people when they don't.

People try to control others' behavior all the time, because they're troubled and they need reassurance.

I think it's selfishness, but that's what relationships and advice are usually all about.

posted by Hugh Janus 22 August | 12:45

Actually dame, it's pretty hypocritical of me to square off at anyone for criticizing, really. I do it. We all do it.

Loveslappin'.

posted by peacay 22 August | 12:47

People try to control others' behavior all the time, because they're troubled and they need reassurance.

I dunno if that's entirely accurate. I think it's more likely that people do things a certain way because they believe that it is the best way. And they want other people to do it that way because they genuinely believe others would be better off. That's misguided, sure, but I don't think the majority of people are into controlling for the controlling, you know?

(kisses for peacay. kisses of critical love.)

posted by dame 22 August | 13:23

Regardless of the benefits or drawbacks of the advice...my controlling tendencies come from nueroses, i. want. to. have. control.

I struggle constantly to relenquish it.

posted by Schyler523 22 August | 13:29

You're right, dame, they aren't into it for the controlling's sake, but the effect is the same. If I respond to someone else's genuinely believed advice with, "That's great, but I don't think it'll work for me," the answer, 9 out of 10 times, is, "That's because you don't understand yet," or something snippier.

Probably because my interlocutor is certain that what they are doing is the best and nothing else, and because I don't have the stone heart to say, "If I was in your relationship, I'd be unhappy, because I'm me, and you're you, and we each have our own set of wants and needs. Your SO would drive me crazy, but I understand why s/he appeals to you. I find the things you seek in a relationship to be mundane and trivial, but knowing you, I understand why you seek them. I consider my goals to be the loftiest, and my way of loving to be the best. Every woman I've ever loved has felt similarly, at least for a time. And I bet you'd say the same to me, if I went spouting off my reasons for happiness, unprompted. Or tried to persuade you that your approach to intimacy wasn't as good as mine."

Though not much of a busybody, I am one hell of a hypocrite.

posted by Hugh Janus 22 August | 13:40

I think you are right there, dame.

But I was thinking about this thread last night. As stated above, I'm not an introspective person. After quite a bit of thought, I realised that I really don't have an opinion about this subject (what an insightful conclusion!) I absolutely don't care whether I am single or attached, (as an abstract concept, obviously now, knowing my husband, I prefer to be married - to him). My whole life I have been completely happy whether or not I am in a relationship. And I've had quite a bit of being single thrown in between a few LTRs.

So given that I really don't care about my own circumstances, I definitely wouldn't try to evangelize my situation to anyone else.

I think this attitude speaks to the fact that I have a huge ego and am constantly pleased with myself. Which is an entirely different issue.

posted by gaspode 22 August | 13:45

Amberglow: I totally see your point. I guess I'm basing that observation on my own experiences... in that several guys I've "candi-dated" literally couldn't talk about anything deeper than their belly button. This town, I've been told, is weird in that way... lots of men just playing a stereotype.

posted by moonbird 22 August | 13:54

Actually gaspode, your photo was for me the most revealing, in a way. I do mean that in the nicest possible way. And I am referring for the mostpart to your brain. I like smart. If I say more than that and you may need frontdoor renovations to get in this evening.

posted by peacay 22 August | 13:55

I think this attitude speaks to the fact that I have a huge ego and am constantly pleased with myself. Which is an entirely different issue.

gaspode, I am now in complete adoration of you for boiling my exact sentiment down in 30 words or less as most people I know tend to assume on the opposite.

*hugs gaspode*

posted by Frisbee Girl 22 August | 14:01

See, I'm never very pleased with myself, which paradoxically keeps me happy.

posted by jonmc 22 August | 14:02

I'm terrified of being pleased with myself. If I were, I'd be a much bossier asshole that I already am. I mean, I like me and I am pleased by certain things, but straight up pleased overall? Gah!

I think most of your last post is correct, Hugh. I try in my life to differentiate between the things I wish more people did because it would suit me and the advice I recommend to people about what would suit them. In many conversations on the internet that doesn't come through of course, because you don't know most people well enough, so you fall back on explaining why what works for you works for you & hoping that any readers can interpret that and apply it against what they know of themselves. It's like editing, you know--making someone sound like the best them, not like you.

posted by dame 22 August | 14:22

Well, I'm very pleased with every one of you, and am currently having a very satisfying monogomous relationship with you all.

huh?

posted by taz 22 August | 14:28

Well, then this monogamy thing is working out a lot better than I thought it would, taz.

posted by gaspode 22 August | 14:36

Frisbee Girl: right. I was thinking that's what you meant, upthread. I guess my take on the whole idea is that my husband enhances my happiness immeasurably, but I'd still be happy without him. And I can't say that I'd be looking for someone. If that sounds cold, so be it.

posted by gaspode 22 August | 14:56

*presents metachat with a dozen long-stem red roses*

posted by mcgraw 22 August | 15:11

*presents metachat with a dozen long-stem red roses*

Well that won't do it - I want dinner and dancing and chocolates. AND the flowers.

posted by peacay 22 August | 15:19

gaspode: EXACTLY and to the letter. I realize this means that I may never wed or have a lifelong partner, but I'm entirely comfortable with that and feel that there is so much to be gained and experiences to be had that if I do miss it I'll likely do so in fleeting moments.

I'm terrified of being pleased with myself. If I were, I'd be a much bossier asshole that I already am. I mean, I like me and I am pleased by certain things, but straight up pleased overall? Gah!

Wow, dame, your world just does not sound at all pleasant (and this is purely my personal gut response and not a value statement in any way): being pleased with yourself puts you at risk for being a much bossier asshole than you already are? Isn't that a near pure form of negative feedback on positive actions and goals? I'm not talking about pathological narcissism or megolamania. (In no way do I entertain the illusion that I'm perfect or dream of approaching that state, and I'm finding that one of the worst parts of getting older is being regarded as some kind of authority on life and how to live it when there's so much more to learn.) I'm talking about a genuine sense of a well being that is not solely contingent upon outside approval or another's presence. Of acknowledging to oneself a job well done and taking deserved pleasure in that.

My head is spinning on how, then, any manner of self improvement, or even maintaining the status quo, would result while operating under a mindset of constantly increasing fear that you'll turn into an even bossier asshole. I don't think I'd get out of bed each day if it meant that enjoying the satisfaction of a job well done and/or a day well spent would turn me increase my core negative qualities.

posted by Frisbee Girl 22 August | 15:23

Well, I reread what I wrote about being constantly pleased with myself, and having a huge ego... it's hard to exaggerate for effect in this sort of forum. So I think (and dame, by all means correct me if I am wrong), that dame was reacting to my implicated utter lack of humility.

Certainly, things would be grim if we all thought we were the pinnacle of humanity. Hee. But I was trying to emphasize that I like myself very much, and basically cannot envision a "you complete me" scenario. Not that I think I am beyond improvement. And I certainly aspire towards self improvement.

I'm not really an asshole. Honest.

(me me me! It's all about me!)

posted by gaspode 22 August | 15:32

Well that won't do it - I want dinner and dancing and chocolates. AND the flowers.

You sure are high-maintenance, Metachat, but you're worth it.

posted by mcgraw 22 August | 15:32

mcgraw: I know long-stems are classic, but a handful of orange freesias would make my heart just soar.

peacay: If you ever make it to the US of crazy A, I'm sure mcgraw will exceed your fondest desires. I can only promise to take you salsa dancing and keep you up well past dawn talking about silly things. Oh, and feed the whole lot of you blood orange mimosas until you pass out for an all-afternoon nap by the fire.

posted by Frisbee Girl 22 August | 15:37

I just want everyone to be happy and I hate it that people get hurt. And I really, really, really hate it when I'm the one who's doing the hurting. I just thought I'd say that in this context.

posted by kmellis 22 August | 15:41

What is a mimosa? (I did sort of google this the other day but google kind of laughed at me)

posted by peacay 22 August | 15:52

Champagne and orange juice.

PS. Really interesting thread, not sure what to contribute though.

posted by selfnoise 22 August | 15:57

Frisbee, gaspode mostly got it. But yeah, I will always choose ambition over "pleasant" and to that extent, I tend to think about what I can do better next time and not spend much time being pleased by what I have done. If I am only pleased with something, then I am missing where I fucked up, where I could have improved. That's not everyone's choice, but I think I would be utterly bored with a lot of other people's lives.

I'm just a hardass. And it really has nothing to do with external approval. To be honest, lots of people who love me a lot are dismayed by the pressure I put on myself. But I'm also incredibly lazy and very inclined to tell people the best way to do things that have an objectively best way (and I'm usually right, but still, bossing is not usually well-received), and I know if I weren't on my case I would be a fat ass who sat around doing nothing but directing people all day.

We all have our own flaws to combat our own way, haven't we?

posted by dame 22 August | 16:50

Albizia julibrissin aka mimosa is a tree found in most of the southeastern USA. It originated in China but as it produces tons of seeds and is a fast grower, it quickly established itself in it's new home. It has large pink blossoms in early summer. The trees have a rather tropical look to them, but break easily in storms, live rather short lives (typical of fast-growing trees) and are higly susceptible to mimosa wilt - which at one time made a good run at wiping the trees out. There are cultivars available that are more resistant to the wilt, although I am not sure if any are immune.

posted by weretable and the undead chairs 22 August | 16:54

The flowers are very silky feeling and the tree is also known as "silktree" although mimosa is what it is commonly called.

posted by weretable and the undead chairs 22 August | 16:57

So now you know what two "mimosas" are. I should have googled for a picture but I am too lazy. I just wanted to add that I have one in my yard. Also, it is raining. Which is why I am inside. Hi.

posted by weretable and the undead chairs 22 August | 16:58

Mimosas are what old ladies order at Sunday brunch.

posted by kmellis 22 August | 17:01

Mimosas are what I order at Sunday brunch because they are what people who do not like bloody Marys order.

posted by dame 22 August | 17:08

Ha, kmellis, where I've bartended, the old ladies here in the city order Ramos Fizzes for their Sunday brunches. What, with the raw egg, who cares about the carbs in the juice or alcohol? (Near verbatim quote.)

A bloody mary can be great, but who in hell wants to be limited to just one alcoholic drink option? And red beers (aka bloody beers) are quite tasty and effective for early afternoon bbq and nap action alike.

For the record, though, mimosa blossoms smell terrific.

posted by Frisbee Girl 22 August | 17:52

In the middle-late eighties, I waited tables at a nice restaurant that also was open for Sunday brunch. Good lord, I hated to work that shift. Mimosas give me flashbacks of tables of eight or more ornery old ladies who ran me ragged and tip poorly.

I didn't use to like bloody marys, but I do now...even though I still oddly feel like I should be eating the drink instead of drinking it. Spicy and with worcestershire ("wooster-sure", dammit) sauce. Mmm. I want one now. What with having a cold/sinus infection/allergies and having taken two Thera-Flus¹ (the Wonder Drug), I'd be asleep within twelve seconds, though.

1. For which I had to present ID twice.

posted by kmellis 22 August | 18:28

Mimosas huh.
It's funny how my Americeducmacation occurs. Thanks for all the info. It's occasionally very strange when an often used word or phrase pops up here or in mefi and feels quite foreign to me. I have the habit of letting it slide to see if I pick it up better with context. This one (mimosa) has popped up over the years and stayed just out of reach.

These cultural tropes are kind of interesting in a way and mostly of very sideline importance so that I don't exert much effort enlightening myself, save for osmosis.
Anyway, travelling overseas, particularly Asia for me, just shows how all the western countries have SOOOOO much more in common than are different. Sitting in Hanoi, New York and London and Sydney (or more specifically, the people from each) are only different by minimal degrees methinks.

I was given what we call a frangipanni and what you call a plumeria for my birthday. After some exhaustive googling I ended up joining a plumeria group from Florida to ask when I should plant out my Plumeria rubra f. tricolor in Sydney. Ironic, yet totally in synch or appropriate if ya gets what I mean. They were very helpful of course and on the money.

posted by peacay 23 August | 10:28

21 August 2005