Jun. 6th, 2008

joreth: (Nude Drawing)
I want to try and elaborate and clarify a subject that I've had to talk about a lot fairly recently and I think I haven't been very well understood.  Greta Christina wrote a post today that very well explains my position on fantasy vs. reality.

See, to me, there's a difference between finding someone attractive and being attracted to them.  What that means is that I can find someone physically attractive, even stimulating and the subject of my private fantasies.  But that doesn't mean I want to actually get involved with them.  It's not just about physical appearances, there are all sorts of things that make it into my fantasy life that I don't actually want to do in real life.  Because real life is not a fantasy and the reality of the situation is nothing like the dream.

Greta Christina's post, for example, talks about fantasizing about her plumber, but when he actually gave her the opportunity to star in her own I Shagged The Naughty Plumber scene, she wasn't interested.  Why?  Because the reality of what gets her hot is different from the fantasy of what gets her hot.  In her fantasies, she can have no-strings attached sex with a total stranger.  But in reality, she does not get wet about a guy she doesn't know.  

Because she has enough sexual experience to know what actually works for her in bed.  She needs to know if she has something in common with the guy (or girl), what his usual sexual practices are, is he safe?  Does he share her kinks?  It's not enough for him to be hot, does he like spankings?  She already knows that vanilla sex doesn't do much for her, no matter how hot her partner is.

So, I can see someone attractive and think "man, I'd fuck him!", but if he actually walked up to me and said "I saw you looking at me and I think you're hot, let's fuck", I'd have to say no.  I can even have friends I know and like and have them feature in my fantasies on a regular basis, but if we're not compatible in some important way, even then my friend can offer himself to me and I'd decline.

For instance, let's say I have a friend who is hot, shares a lot of my common interests, but is monogamous.  Let's say I fantasize about him nightly in all sorts of kinky scenes.  If he walked up to me right this very minute and said "Everything about me is exactly the same as it was yesterday, but now I'm telling you that I want to fuck you", I'd say no.  Because he's monogamous and I already know that me and mono people are not compatible AT ALL.  Even if he were to say "I know I said I was monogamous, but I think I'd like to try the poly thing", I'd still say no.  Because if he were actually compatible with me, I'd have already made a play for him.  Something fundamental about him would have to be radically different - and then he wouldn't be this person, he'd be someone similar, but different.

I don't feel any particular need to try out every single thought that pops into my head, and I pose that it's probably a psychological issue for those who do.  This goes for kinks too, not just entire humans.  What might get me hot as a thought, or even watching as a scene in a movie is not necessarily what will get me hot in real life if it happened to me.  I think it's very important to recognize this about oneself, and to know which fantasies wouldn't work out in real life.

I have friends who are monogamous, who are young, who are not kinky, who are just *something* that I am not.  And I might idily or regularly fantasize about them.  I have ideas and I've seen pictures, movies, and read stories about kinky sex scenes that get me turned on and aid in masturbation.  But I know the reality is different from the fantasy.  I do not need a partner to restrict me from a high-risk partner because I am not actually interested in such a partner, even if I might enjoy looking at him and thinking about him while I masturbate.  I know how I feel about high-risk partners and that turns me off.  I don't need the government to tell me that the Sleeping Beauty series is perverted and keep me from being exposed to it because I know that this story isn't really plausible, even if Bill Gates wanted to create his own little sex kingdom with all his money.  Even if someone had the money to create Eden, I know that sex has to be stopped for silly things like, oh, eating, going to the bathroom, and the body just can't have sex all the time - well, mine can't, anyway.

There is a difference between having sexy thoughts about someone or something, and being actively interested in such a person or thing.  I don't see anything wrong with having thoughts about a person or act you wouldn't want to do in real life, but I think it's very important to recognize the difference.  

Related to this, Greta Christina writes about how being poly has actually narrowed her interest in other people.  She postulates that mono people are forever staring at the "forbidden", so some people may leave their relationships to see what they're missing out on elsewhere.  But as a poly person, she can (theoretically) be with anyone she wants.  Consequently, she doesn't want as many.

For instance, she says "When you’re not monogamous, you realize that not every single person you’re attracted to is someone you’d seriously like to fuck if given the opportunity. ... you remember that you don’t actually want to go to bed with every attractive person who crosses your path. Some attractive people become much less attractive on closer acquaintance. Some attractive people are crazy; some attractive people are dull; some attractive people have appalling political opinions. And some attractive people you just don’t connect with. Especially if you have a busy, reasonably fulfilling life, the reality of non-monogamy may well turn out to be that most people who you’re passingly attracted to are not, in fact, people you actually want to fuck. They may be perfectly lovely, but they’re just not worth the effort."

I know I'm not explaining this as well as she does.  I guess the point is that I don't have to be with everyone who catches my eye because I already know we're not compatible.  What looks hot on screen isn't anything like what feels good in real life.  And I'm not just talking about contortionist sexual positions.  Sex with the naughty plumber might look good on screen, but the parts they're leaving out are about needing to take a piss and interrupting right before your partner has his orgasm, bumping heads because you're different heights and haven't learned each other's rhythms yet, that really annoying sound he makes as you bite his nipples, the fact that he couldn't find your clit with a roadmap and a neon sign.  The parts they're leaving out is that he's an utter moron and intelligence gets you really hot, or that he just fucked 30 girls last week and has never been tested for anything, or you can't come without a little spanking and he's so inhibited about kink that he can't come if he's not in missionary position with the lights out.  

Real life is messy and painful and awkward and our sexual kinks are totally unpredictable and there whether we want to have them or not.  So, in order to get to the good parts, we can either go along trying anything and everything, just in case, or we can learn from our past experiences and start weeding out those encounters that we *know* are more trouble than pleasure.  Lotus position with Monkey and Chainsaw might sound fun, but the prep time takes so long, you might go dry and start worrying about the bills you need to pay tomorrow before you ever get around to the fun parts.  And if you're mind isn't into it, the fun parts won't feel so good anyway.  Then again, for some people, the long prep time might enhance the anticipation, but if you're getting started right before work, you'll probably be disappointed when you run out of time to finish.

I don't have to try everything.  Even some things I get off on in my head are not things I have any intention of trying in real life.  And I don't have to have sex with everyone, even people I think are hot, even people I consider friends, even movie stars and celebrities, because I know that certain people (read: most) have the types of incompatibilities with me that would make the reality of the relationship (long term or one-night stand) not nearly as perfect and steamy as the fantasy.  So what if he's hot?  He's trouble and I know better.

Man Caves

Jun. 6th, 2008 03:40 pm
joreth: (::headdesk::)
[livejournal.com profile] zen_shooter  wrote a post not too long ago about Man Caves.  It's a very harsh post.

And I agree with every word he said.

Apparently there's a trend now where men are allotted a room in the house to be their sole domain where they can decorate and do as they please.  The rest of the house belongs to the wife.

I have a problem with this trend for several reasons.

1)  In the days of yore, when men earned the income necessary to purchase living space, there were two basic ideas on who the house belonged to.  One philosophy said that whoever earned the money owned the stuff bought with it.  Such phrases as a man is King of his Castle are indicative of this mindset.  On the one hand, I can understand this, a person works hard for his money and it's all his money that goes towards the purchase of something.  But in the days when women could not earn an income, or could not earn enough income to support herself if she found herself minus a breadwinner for whatever reason, this mindset is harmful because it creates a situation in which the woman is never independent.  She absolutely relies upon someone else to provide for her very survival.  And, chances are, she's the one who has to spend all her time in said house while he's out earning the money that purchased it, so it's not unreasonable for her to want to make the home comfortable for her.

2) The other philosophy says that a Man's place is out in the real world and a Woman's place is in the home, thereby giving her complete dominion over the household.  Again, I can understand why someone would think this is fair (if you remove the "should"s from the sentence and just say that one person earns money and the other stays home).  In the last philosophy, the wife has nothing of her own, she is completely dependent upon her husband even though she is the one who puts all the labor into the maintenance and upkeep of the house.  She may not have "paid" for it in terms of dollars, but she certainly "paid" for it with her labor.  In the scenario where she doesn't earn an income, if she were to be separated from her husband for any reason, she would have no way to take care of herself, no shelter, nothing, without that house, whereas the man, with his income could purchase other forms of shelter for himself should he lose his wife.  The downside here is that it's the man's money that made the house possible in the first place, so to immediately wrest it away from him is not fair either.

In today's double-income, gender-equality society, I do not subscribe to the home being either spouse's sole domain, regardless of who earns how much money and who puts in what work.  With the cost of living versus income, it really requires at least two people's effort to maintain a home.  If it's not two incomes, it's one person working enough to afford everything and the other person staying home and doing those things that can't be paid or people hired for with only one income.  And, thanks to the common-property laws that were specifically designed to protect against philosophy #1 above, both spouses own equal shares of that house, unless they do something specific to change that.  So the idea that either spouse is prevented from having any input into the decorating and use of the entire house except for one room is just appalling to me.  

It's his fricken' house, dammit!

Yes, it's hers too, so I'm certainly not suggesting he take it away from her.  But did I miss something?  I thought marriages nowadays were all about compromise and two people sharing their lives together?  I thought the days of marriage purely for survival were over.  I thought we no longer married off our women as quickly as possible so she won't starve because she can't earn a living.  I thought men no longer married as quickly as possible to gain household labor through their wife and future children for their own survival.  I thought we decided back in the '20s that marriage was all about LOVE.

Oh, wait, if I watch sitcoms, I'll quickly learn that marriages are not about two adults engaging in meaningful, interdependent relationships, but about men finding women to mother them and take care of them because men can't think for themselves or take care of themselves, let alone decorate or possibly relax and enjoy themselves in their own home.

I mean, what the fuck?

Now we come to another problem I have with this article.  People don't seem to actually like the people they get into relationships with.  Here's Brian, from the article, who likes sports memorabilia and even played well enough to earn some trophies of his own.  These are important enough to him that, when given space to decorate for himself, he displays them.  Yet, his wife has forbidden the presence of these artifacts in the public areas of the house.  She doesn't like the look and she obviously doesn't find her husband's emotional attachment important enough to compromise and put aside some of her pink flowery knick-knacks and make room for her own husband in her life.

And, he married a woman who thinks her husband's place is a closet-sized room in the basement where all his important objects are safely hidden from view.  He has to carve a chunk of space out of her house where he can effectively be someone she doesn't like and where he can escape from her and her decorating ideas.

Now, I happen to be in favor of each adult in a household having a space that they can consider their own, private, personal space.  I don't care if it's a bedroom, a basement room, an office, a shed or garage, whatever.  I believe it's very important for the mental and emotional health for adults to have a space for those parts of them that they do not have in common with their partner, or even just time to recharge and be alone for a while, perhaps after a fight or a long day at work, or to feel good even.  Different people need different types of space, different amounts of time alone, and that's all fine.  But I do think it's important to have, even if that space is a mental separation rather than a physical room, because people are individual, and no matter how compatible you may be with your partner, you are still two unique individuals.

But the rest of the house is shared.  The home is not one room = husband, 3 rooms/kitchen/livingroom/bathroom/diningroom/yard/garage = wife.  Or, it shouldn't be, anyway.  He has to use the kitchen, the family room, the bathroom, the yard, too.  But in this house, he is not a significant presence in the home.  She is.  Her life is all about her.  He is fit into whatever space she found convenient, to be taken out when she wants and hidden away those parts she doesn't want.

This is not about having different interests from your spouse.  This isn't about making compromises ("You can't put that wagonwheel coffee table in here, but I'll cut back on the lace and flowers").  This is about one person saying "I do not like this significant part of you.  This part will not be allowed in my life and certainly not where other people can see it.  I give you this space where I can ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.  You will be a guest in my life and in my home."

Regardless of who makes more money or who does more home maintenance, this is just wrong.

Why is it so difficult for people to marry people they like?  I mean, if we are going with the assumption that marriage is all about love, shouldn't "like" be in there somewhere?  How can you love someone when you don't like them, or you don't like significan't parts of them?  If we're going back to marriage as a practical survival thing, then I suppose you don't have to actually like your spouse as long as you can make the practical arrangement worthwhile.  

But fuck, people!  If you have to disallow your spouse from doing anything, let alone being himself in his own home, I can't see as how you really like him at all.  It's not like she asked him to only cut his toenails in the bathroom.  She won't allow in a million years the golf trophy he won during a melanoma benefit he played in honor of is fucking father.  

The women speak about their husbands in this article like children.  Viki (Brian's wife) mentions his friends coming over to play in the basement like That 70s show.  

The article does throw in at the very end that some women want their own space in the house too and, as I mentioned above, I think each adult should have his and her own personal space.  But the idea that only one room belongs to one spouse and the other spouse has complete and total control to dictate what the entire rest of the house looks like and is used for just pisses me right the fuck off.

Banners
























OSZAR »