22 posts tagged “libertine”

When I get bored, I go over to Bookreads and answer some questions from their "Never Ending Book Quiz".  One question I came upon made me smile; it was as if it had been written especially for me. 

The quiz follows below:

Which of the following famous libertines was a real person?

1. Romeo
2. Don Juan
3. Casanova
4. Lothario

A box of cyber condoms for all correct guessers.

Why do you love your body?
Sponsored by Body by Victoria® from Victoria's Secret.

Now, that's a loaded question.

I've heard it said that sex is all in the brain, but the body is the means by which the brain's sexual desire is fulfilled.  With my body, I've experienced years of sensual pleasure as well as given it to others in great measure.

Of course, there are other reasons, but this is the first that came to mind.

While idly browsing the net today, I came upon a most interesting post that expressed similar ideas to my own about the recent flurry of public moral hypocrisy we’ve seen lately on the news.  What caught my interest about this post was that it came from the other side of the aisle from my own thoughts; that of the social conservative.

What follows below are my comments on this post.  To better understand my comments, ead the original article first:

What's your "deal breaker" when it comes to relationships?

Because I am non-monogamous, jealousy, possessiveness, and clinginess are the prime deal breakers for me.

I don't do the kind of clingy relationships where a couple is joined at the hip 24-7.  I prefer women who have their own lives and do not build their lives around me.  I want them to have something going on in their lives besides our relationship -- and that includes relationships with others, her own hobbies, her own friends, her family, her job, and so on.  I don't want someone who believes we must do everything together, and I prefer to live separately as I don't really want anyone knowing all my business all the time.

A jealous lover operates on mistrust and a lack of confidence in themselves.  Jealousy feeds dishonesty.  Because I am honest and will tell a new lover straight up that I will not be sexually faithful, there's no need for jealousy.  If having a non-exclusive relationship isn't their cup of tea, then they've got the opportunity to walk away before the relationship goes any further.  Someone who gets into a relationship with me, anyway, and is then jealous, has no one but themselves to blame.

Jealousy is also indicative of sagging self-esteem, as the jealous lover automatically thinks that if I'm seeing others along with them, then that must mean that they don't measure up and that I'm planning to replace them.  That sentiment might fly in a monogamous relationship, but for the non-monogamous, seeing others doesn't mean that the primary relationship is valued any less or is lacking.  Different relationships are valued precisely because they are different, though not necessarily better.  For me, variety is the spice of life and being monogamous to me would be like having to eat the same type of food 3 meals a day for the rest of my life.

Possessiveness is likewise a deal breaker.  No one owns me and I don't stay with anyone out of a sense of obligation.  I spend time with someone because I want to and I'm free to spend time with anyone of my choosing at any time.

The other day, I was visiting a lover I don't see all that regularly, and she told me that I have "Relationship ADD", because I flit from relationship to relationship, with little interest in settling down with one woman.

After I finished laughing my ass off, I conceded that she was probably right and that referring to my wandering ways as such was really rather clever.

I thought about it a little, and realized that one of the prime reasons I tend to move on from any particular relationship is boredom; once I've pretty well gotten all the mystery out of a particular relationship and my partner has become fairly predictable, my attention wanders and I lose interest.  Rarely do my relationships break up because of anger or hard feelings; they die from lost interest and benign neglect.

And like those with ADD who jump from one thing to another, I've long been happy with having several lovers concurrently; when one gets boring, I go visit another, so I that I don't get terminally bored with any particular one permanently too soon.

Nevertheless, this type of ADD is one that I have no interest in "curing".

In a recent Alternet article, Are Male Fantasies of "Girl-on-Girl" Action Messing with Women's Sexuality? by Simcha, the author explores the dilemma of differing sexual fantasies and fetishes among couples and the difficulties of resolving such differences.

My comment follows below

The Author Illustrated One of The Weaknesses of Monogamy 

In monogamous relationships, a person's only partner is expected to fulfill all of their sexual needs. This is fine and dandy when both have the same fantasies or lack thereof, the same level of sex drive, and so on.

But, as is frequently the case, couples have mismatched libidos and mismatched fantasies.

And whatever solution any individual couple comes up with will leave one of the partners unsatisfied. Either one partner, usually the woman, will end up doing things she feels uncomfortable with to please her partner, or one partner, usually the man, will have to make do with repressing his fantasies and be satisfied with what he considers a truncated sex life, in order to please his partner. Both solutions suck.

Being non-monogamous, fulfilling my sexual needs isn't completely invested in a single partner, thus I would never expect any one partner to do anything she feels the slightest bit uncomfortable with. Nor do I have to go around frustrated with half a sex life, because I'm free to seek out other partners who are interested in doing things another partner may not, and vice versa. This, in turn, takes the pressure off, and I'm free to enjoy each partner for what she feels comfortable with, and vice versa.

In regards to girl-on-girl stuff, that doesn't do a thing for me. I enjoy engaging in threesomes, both FMF and MFM, but in both instances, I prefer that the two of the same sex concentrate on interacting with the one person of the opposite sex, either alternately or simultaneously, and not with one another, but your mileage may vary.

Once again, Alternet has kindly providing me with blogging material.  In the article, How to Make an Open Relationship Work by Greta Christina, the author asserts:

It's surprisingly simple: think carefully about what you're afraid of -- then talk about it with your partner.

My comment follows below:

I've Always Been Non-Monogamous

I've never been in a monogamous relationship that I've later decided to make non-monogamous. All my relationships have been non-monogamous from the start.

I would hazard a guess that my way of doing things is easier and makes for far fewer potentially hurt feelings and misunderstandings, as I'm not changing the rules in the middle of the game. I make it quite clear at the beginning of each new relationship that no matter how I may come to feel for them, that monogamy will never be a part of our relationship. If they feel they can't handle that, they have the chance to walk away then, before hurt feelings develop.

Usually, at any given time, I'll have one "primary" relationship,with several other friends with benefits, plus a one-nighter now and then. My current primary and I operate on a "don't ask, don't tell" system. She knows I have other lovers, but she doesn't want to know the details, nor does she wish to be included in my extracurricular sexual activities. We don't live together, so this makes it easier. She doesn't want to meet any of them, nor does she want me bringing them to her apartment. These are the only rules.

As far as the jealousy issue goes, many people act as if it's an uncontrollable thing; that people shouldn't even try to control it and that it's a normal and expected reaction to non-monogamy.

I don't buy that. I think jealousy is comparable to anger -- everyone feels anger over certain things, but unlike jealousy, most people feet that it can and should be controlled. There are anger management classes; I think it would be a good idea to have jealousy management classes as well.

                        Your result for The Sexual HELL Test...
                       

HELL LEVEL 3

Raw score: 81%

                            Take The Sexual HELL Test at HelloQuizzy
                           

While visiting a blog, I clicked a link to another blog entitled, "How to Tell If a Guy is a Jerk". I read further and the blogger defined a "jerk" as:

"For this site a "jerk," is: a man who is not a good prospect for a long term, committed, emotionally mature, healthy, and loving relationship. While it is absolutely true that no one is perfect and we all make mistakes, there are some men less cut out for a healthy relationship than others. This site is about recognizing them and finding the great men that are available for a mature partnership!"

Whoa. While I fully accept that I'm not a good prospect for a long term monogamous relationship, I don't accept that this makes me a "jerk". I especially resent this label because I'm honest and straightforward about what I want out of my relationships and I'm not trying to deceive anyone to believe otherwise.

Nor do I accept that all "healthy" and "mature" relationships MUST be a long term, committed monogamous relationship, without exception. Healthy and mature relationships take various forms and it's things such as honesty, consensuality, lack of abuse, and so on that make them so.

She also assumes that every woman wants or should want nothing else but a long term monogamous relationship. While this is indeed true for most women, it's not true of all women, as some women aren't cut out for that type of relationship any more than some men are.

And while there's nothing wrong with a blog that gives tips on how to find men who want monogamous relationships, there's no need to denigrate those of us who don't. In one entry, she refers to the belief in having sexual variety as "denigrating to women, it is degrading to men, and it is completely antithetical to a healthy and happy intimate relationship."

Bullshit. I'd not have a problem with her if she'd said that sexual variety wasn't her cup of tea; that she preferred monogamous relationships because they work better for her. I'd not have had any objections to that at all because it would have fallen under the "different strokes for different folks" principle.

Referring to the libertine male, she also said: "There are reasons why some men don't want a life-time partner. It has to do with their ancient ancestor's sexual strategy. These male stone age ancestors preferred being a sperm donor rather than investing in offspring. These sorts of guys just haven't evolved to a place where they care and respect women, or desire the beauty that comes from a long term relationship."

Again, this is full of crap. She assumes too much when she refers to nonmonogamous men as being not sufficiently "evolved" and erroneously states that such men cannot care about or respect women. And she is short-sighted to believe that "beauty" in a relationship can only come in one form and that form must be the same for everyone.

Different men have different needs and want different kinds of lives. Some want monogamous relationships and that's fine. Others of us don't, and that's fine, too. Neither one is more "evolved", healthy or mature than the other, just DIFFERENT.

And as far as "investing in offspring" goes, well, I call her a liar. I raised my son singlehandedly all the way to adulthood, without once ever having been monogamous.

I'm guessing she doesn't know many non-monogamous men; perhaps only the one who once broke her heart.

She also puts down "fast" women, telling them they don't deserve a "decent" man if they don't become more "coy", to use her words. She states: "It is unrealistic for a woman to expect a relationship with a great man unless she is doing what she can to be a good human being as well." In other words, if you're not a monogamous female, then you cannot be a "good human being".

The hell with this self-righteous judgmental bile. There are no doubt hundreds of sites out there with tips on how to find a suitable partner for a long term monogamous relationship that don't put down those who want something else, that would be more useful than this Dr Laura-esque site.

Rant over. I feel better now.

Here we go again.

Moral hysteria has raised its ugly head once more, this time in a recent book, Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love and Lose at Both by Laura Sessions Stepp. In this book, the author uses junk science to back up her disapproval of the growing trend among young, unmarried women who view sex as men always have and who are engaging in one-night stands; random "hookups", to use the current common parlance. Not limiting her classification of a "hookup" as simply a one-time sexual encounter, Stepp paints with a broad brush including make out sessions and falling asleep half clothed on the same bed under the same label.

She laments the decline of traditional, old-fashioned dating, but what especially draws her ire is the fact that these women are engaging in sex for sex's sake, and are not looking for love and/or commitment.

Included in the book are interviews with six sexually active, young, college women, all from privileged backgrounds

Stepp claims to be a feminist, but she comes off sounding like a member of the fundamentalist Moral Majority. She takes a patronizing tone with women, telling them they don't really like going out carousing, getting drunk and getting laid; they just think they do, regardless of what they say.

She trots out the tired, junk science "oxytocin" argument, most recently promoted by Dr Eric Keroack, an anti-choice advocate recently appointed by President Bush to oversee federal family planning programs. The oxytocin theory claims that women, but not men, produce oxytocin, a chemical that makes them "bond" with their sexual partner, and that women who have multiple partners ultimately stop producing oxytocin, which would make it difficult, if not impossible for them to later settle down with one partner into a monogamous relationship.

Stepp also drags out the musty old assertion that women are naturally coy and not biologically suited to initiating sex, which has been largely disproven by recent research. She claims that modern society has made women think they "have to" go out and pursue men, when what they'd really rather be doing is waiting quietly at home for men to make the first move.

She also advocates a return to the sexual double standard: men initiate, women wait, for what she claims are feminist reasons: so that young woman will avoiding getting hurt (as if hurt is inevitable and women could not possibly know their own minds) and that "loving relationships" will occur later in life.

Stepp believes that love, not academic or career ambitions, should be the focus of young women's energies. "When you talk about ambition, there's probably no one who's more ambitious than I was in college," she said. "But I didn't want to let that ambition get in the way of having boyfriends."

Apparently, Stepp is about as much of a feminist as Al Sharpton is a member of the KKK.

A "one size fits all" approach to sex and relationships is maladaptive in my opinion. Sure, old-fashioned dating suits some people, but, for others, either for a time in their lives, or permanently, casual sex suits their lives better. The predisposition for initiating or for coyness varies greatly among individuals of both genders, and neither way is instrinsically "wrong". People should feel free to find out what works best for them without prudish, condescending harridans like Stepp trying to make them feel guilty.

Stepp fails to prove her assertion that women lose out when they delay love and committed relationships in college. The vast majority of women who engage in hookups eventually settle down into committed, monogamous relatiionships after college, and for the ones who don't, so what? Not everyone needs or wants monogamy or commitment. And that goes for women as much as it goes for men.

Thoughts?