But, The Ethicist in The New York Times' Sunday Magazine for tomorrow confirmed what I felt (and I was no where near 'rage'--fear and concern were more like it):
A lover’s feelings, even rage, ought not be so crudely suppressed. Quite the contrary, intimate partners should be free to reveal themselves, to be known and understood. ... If you are to cultivate a close connection to another person, you should not promote a plan that discourages her from confiding her feelings or from disclosing herself.Even as I intellectually demand that for myself, I don't emotionally buy it. Emotionally, I feel like I'm too much work, too much angst. And yet, I could never be in a relationship where I didn't feel comfortable, no, more, encouraged, to express my feelings. (And I express my feelings pretty well!)
A couple of other interesting things:
I was embarrassed to blog that I was going out with the Republican again, on the off chance that either John or Steven read this. I don't want them to know my weaknesses. That affects the whole energy of the blog. Maybe I should cancel this one and start something under another name, or give this up all together. I'm leaning towards the latter. Having an active blog is different than having once had a blog that you deleted, and I feel like if I'm going to give the vanilla guy (or guys) a real shot, I need to actually do that.
I think Steven read a posting I wrote long ago, on a message board, about loving to have a man seduce me out of my clothes. I'm, not sure, but I had a flash that that was why he did. Which was one of the most lovely, loving things anyone has ever done for me. He's the only man that's ever really cared what I wanted.
I don't seem to to do well with dates on Saturday nights that involve me getting more naked. John, Steven and the Republican all fell apart on that. (For some reason, I seem to do well with dates on Monday nights--but that is a low-key night--very different expectations.) In part, I think that, with the exception of Steven, it was too fast for me. But also because I don't like to work that way. I'd rather have an evening and see where it unfolds. For me to say "I'll do x, y & z," when those are difficult things and the whole relationship is hurtling along too fast for my comfort, well, that changes the energy. I want to be seduced, not depositioned and committed. But in all instances, if the man hadn't done the honorable thing, which is setting what are expectations are beforehand, so I won't have regrets and having good communication, it would have been much easier for me, and I, in all honesty, would have gone where he led. It doesn't say much for my feminism. Sex can't always be put in neat little labels.
So, I spose I'm in holding mode. There are a couple of sweet vanilla men out there. I think I need to spend more time there. But I ache to surrender.
1 comment:
I apologize for intruding in your silent space but I must. Please forgive me:
1. Why do you think weaknesses are unattractive? They make us human; they make us beautiful. We have to remove the armor to be capable of being real and, hence, loved. Occasionally, maybe frequently, we're hurt but not running that risk means we'll never run the "risk" of glory either.
2. A man's care on Saturday protects you from yourself on Monday. Be joyful for the integrity and discipline necessary to want to protect the beautiful woman who writes this blog from herself on Monday.
3. Be patient. Be yourself. You're on the right track. Dominance can exist in a vanilla relationship too -- just without protocol, without ritual and without rope. It's the man that matters; not the rope. Don't confuse the desire for Dominance with lust for the whip. They are not the same and they are not close to equivalent in importance.
4. Yes, dear blogger, your words are read, studied and felt. And, yes, you absolutely are loved too.
Post a Comment