But to be Loved Alone

by COMF 15 Replies latest jw friends

COMF

Englishman said, in another post:
My Auntie Lou has had 4 marriage proposals since being widowed. Guess why she says no! She values her independence too much
Amen, and more power to you, Auntie!
I believe children need a solid, stable family life. I think the best environment for developing a healthy attitude toward self and others is a functional, traditional family structure.
Now that my kids are grown, however, I've had the darndest time trying to see the point of committing your love, attention and sex activities to a single person. Frankly, I find that sex is much more enjoyable without the trappings of commitment, jealousy, fear of betrayal, and insistence on "me and me alone." And I can find no reason why a person shouldn't enjoy the company, including sex, with someone who is a friend, but not romantically involved (given the usual understoods like complete honesty, mutual consent, protection from disease/pregnancy, etc.).
I'm close friends with several women, any one of whom would, I have no doubt, make an exciting and delightful bed partner. Seriously, what is accomplished by restricting my sexual activities to just one of them? I'm not raising kids; I already finished that.
Sometimes I start my morning with a tall vanilla latte. Sometimes I have orange juice and a bagel with cream cheese. Sometimes it's eggs over medium with picante sauce, bacon and hash browns. Sometimes it's waffles with butter and honey. If I wake up to scrambled eggs today, is that a betrayal of the bagel and cream cheese? Is my delight in bagels diminished as a result?
If I sometimes wake up with Barbara, and sometimes with Jennie, and sometimes with Amanda, then if this morning I wake up with Melissa, how is this a betrayal of Barbara?
Everyone who never feels any sexual attraction to anyone except their mate, raise your hands.
Why do you suppose that happens, that sexual attraction to others? Imperfection? Please. How about, that's the way we are naturally, and the monogamy thing is a kind of leftover from the days when the family unit was insular and necessary for survival? How about, we only still do it because we were told from infancy that this is how it's supposed to be? How about, the majority of folks don't do it anyway, they just play a pretend game and lead a double life? How about getting rid of the pretense?
More and more all the time, this makes sense to me. Frankly, I like living alone. I love people and I love company, but there's a lot to be said for having your own place and your own space, and allowing people into it as you see fit rather than constantly sharing it with another.
In her book, Gift From the Sea, Anne Morrow Lindbergh wrote something that hit me like a sack of bricks when it was brought to my attention. Interestingly, the person who sent it to me did not intend for the words to be understood in the context I'm discussing here. I don't think Ms. Lindbergh did, either, given the illustrations she chooses; but then again, the application of her words to partnerships could hardly have escaped her. consider what she says about "being loved alone" versus "alone moments." There are two pages to the excerpt. The first sets the stage for the second by giving the illustration. The second brings home the obvious conclusion. If you're easily distracted, skip the first. If you want the full thrust of it, read both. (Note: throughout the book Ms. Lindbergh uses seashells as symbols for stages of life and social interaction)
1. http://www.scarletmoon.com/fred/Lindbergh/Double_Sunrise1.html
2. http://www.scarletmoon.com/fred/Lindbergh/Double_Sunrise2.html
Consider closely what she says about the nursing child alone with its mother... the desire to be loved alone; yet the other children are clamoring at the door; one loves them, too...
COMF
somebody

Sometimes I start my morning with a tall vanilla latte. Sometimes I have orange juice and a bagel with cream cheese. Sometimes it's eggs over medium with picante sauce, bacon and hash browns. Sometimes it's waffles with butter and honey. If I wake up to scrambled eggs today, is that a betrayal of the bagel and cream cheese? Is my delight in bagels diminished as a result?

Your view of "commiting" your love, attention love and sex activities to more than one person would probably work smoothly, if humans were scrambled eggs or bagels. I've often thought as you do, now that my youngest child will be an adult soon. But if you think hard about it, you might end up falling for someone and want them to be with only you. How would you feel if you called her up to spend time with her, and she compared you to eggs and bagels and said there is no reason to be with just you and then said that she is spending time with Dick ( but not yours) for the rest of the week? I think life would be a lot more difficult living like that. I say it's best to be alone. no hassles and no strings. self-indulgence could always fill the physical void, and it hurts nobody.
peace,
somebody
COMF

How would you feel if you called her up to spend time with her, and she compared you to eggs and bagels and said there is no reason to be with just you and then said that she is spending time with Dick ( but not yours) for the rest of the week?

If you got the impression that I intended for only myself to enjoy the benefits of that perspective, then you didn't understand me. Obviously, if I think this is a good attitude to have, then I'm going to have to think it is a good attitude for my partners to have, no? Your question above is asked with the clear assumption that any activity with a man other than me would constitute a rejection of me; that sex with any man other than me would be a threat to my relationship/friendship/arrangement/whatever with her.
Not so. Consider again these words of Ms. Morrow's:
"It is all right to wish to be loved alone," he said, "mutuality is the essence of love. There cannot be others in mutuality. It is only in the time-sense that it is wrong. It is when we desire continuity of being loved alone that we go wrong." For not only do we insist on believing romantically in the "one-and-only" -- the one-and-only love, the one-and-only mate, the one-and-only mother, the one-and-only security -- we wish the "one-and-only" to be permanent, ever-present and continuous. The desire for continuity of being-loved-alone seems to me "the error bred in the bone" of man. For "there is no one-and-only," as a friend of mine once said in a similar discussion, "there are just one-and-only moments."
When she is with me, these are my "one-and-only moments." When she is not with me, what she does is none of my business. It would be my wish that she enjoy herself. Shall I be jealous when she goes shopping with her friends? When she goes to the spa and gets an all-over body massage from some hulk with arms as big as my legs? When she spends the majority of her day in closed meetings with business associates I have never met, doing I know not what? No, because when we come together, that will be my moment of one-and-only-ness. That I know there will be such times is enough. They don't have to be "permanent, ever-present and continuous."
COMF
somebody

Obviously, if I think this is a good attitude to have, then I'm going to have to think it is a good attitude for my partners to have, no?

ok...I undersand you now. If you ever reach a point where you are able to live life with that total freedom, and find others who share your same attitude, keep us posted on how it works, and let us know if your attitude or any of your partners' cahnge at all. I'm curious if that could ever work with all parties involved.
peace,
somebody
wasasister

Comf: in many ways I agree with you. The long-term committment doesn't seem to work with most people. If you begin to look closely, many of the enduring marriages we see are stuck together by factors such as fear of being alone or religious dogma. I will note that I have also seen some long-term relationships that do work. While I'm certain one or the other partner in these situations occasionally feels sexually attracted to others, they don't believe the fun of casual sex would be worth the damage to what they have established together.
Frankly, I find that sex is much more enjoyable without the trappings of commitment, jealousy, fear of betrayal, and insistence on "me and me alone."
Well, that may be true, if all you are seeking is sexual gratification. What about the aspects of a relationship that take time to develop, such as trust, intimacy, and a deeper kind of love? Some people would no doubt argue their sexual experience is enhanced by such other factors, not diminished.
I don't really know if I'm capable of complete monogamy at this phase of my life. I was when I was married, but as you pointed out, children need a stable environment when they are growing.
I think Somebody has a point about remaining alone. If I ever decide to share my life with a man, I would not expect he'd be thrilled if I announced I want to be free to sleep with whoever I may be attracted to. If I find this guy (an believe me, I'm not in any hurry), he will be special enough to make me think twice before taking a chance of hurting him or losing him. Most of the really valuable things in our lives come with a price-tag. If you have to give up casual sex to be with a person who can make you happy in many ways, it would be worth the sacrafice.
Wasa, who is deeply committed to herself right now
TR

Comf,
In your situation, your scenario might work. But, it seems to me that you'd have to be DAMN careful who you get involved with. Somebody could end up hurting over the situation. Plus, no matter how careful you are, you still have to worry about pregnancy and disease.
My situation is different. I have kids in the house. I love my wife and don't want to be with another woman. Sure I look at other women lustfully, but that would complicate matters to act upon that lust. Whenever I have a thought for another woman sexually, my wife comes into the picture, kicks my ass, then we get it on! We enjoy the security and affection of each other's love. I want to be an example to my kids to not be sexually promiscuous, and to be smart about their lovelife.
TR
mommy

Comf,
Thank you for your well thought out post. I enjoyed reading it, as well as the book excerpts. As a child growing up my parents stayed together for us children. This is not a hunch, or a feeling I had growing up. This was told to us several times, the only reason they were together was to keep the family together. I fear though my parents had good intentions, they may have done more damage than good by doing this.
I believe children need a solid, stable family life. I think the best environment for developing a healthy attitude toward self and others is a functional, traditional family structure.

I feel this comment, though it looks really good is not practical in some peoples lives. I also feel that if a parent is happy with themselves, and confident in life with or without a lover, or perhaps several lovers. The children will benefit more than seeing a parent sacrifice their own happiness for another.
I did enjoy the following sentences from the pages though
But we are no longer children; life is not a beach. There is no pattern here for permanent return, only for refreshment.
I agree with this statement in the sense of all of us needs refreshment to return to the beauty of the simple one to one bond of love. But if others find that they get this refreshment from seveeral people, All I can say is have fun and hope it works out. Though I like Somebody would really like to know how all parties involved feel about the relationship.
Thanks Comf,
wendy
teejay

COMF,
The situation you describe, one of freedom from commitment to a single
person, is ideal and should work without any difficulty. That is, as long as
those involved are willing to live the same way, having little interest in
commitment themselves or having a willingness to disavow any feelings that
might begin to develop. I think the forecast isn't very good, though.
I say that based on a very short episode of my own experience. Following
the end of my first marriage, my attitude toward relationships pretty much
mirrors what yours seems to be now. Briefly, I became involved with two
women who knew my situation. I lived alone but spent time with each of
them. Never a lifetime dream to have more than one woman in my life, I
more or less fell into the situation.
Both of them knew that I had no interest in having a relationship with them
alone, and both knew of the other. They pledged that they were willing to
maintain the status quo. I think they really believed their stated belief that
they could be happy with the way things were. I knew that I was. I had just
emerged from a 13 year marriage that had ended horribly and getting
'involved' in another one was the furthest thing from my mind.
Things didn't stay mild and pleasant for long, and that's why I say that your
prognosis isn't very good, either. While I didn't want to be stuck with just
one person, or ANY person, I didn't want to leave a trail of hurt feelings
either. As long as people are like bagels or waffles or bacon and eggs -
absent of any possibility of emotion - then your outlook makes sense. But to
find people, especially women who tend to be more emotional and tend to
be homebuilders, who are willing to forego a committed relationship is very
rare, imho.
God bless you if you got it, though. You da man!
peace
todd
think41self

Comf,
Interesting post. I have wondered about some of those things from the male perspective.
I was married to my first husband for 15 years. I can honestly say I was not sexually attracted to anyone else during that time. Did I meet some fascinating and stimulating men in that time? Yes, but I do not confuse those emotions with sexual stimulation.
I have been with my second husband for 2 years now. The thought of him looking at another woman with lust in his heart is hurtful to me. I believe he feels the same way. We have such a deep commitment to each other, I truly cannot imagine being with another. But as far as each of us having our personal space and time, we both avidly respect that, and would never infringe on the other's "space".
Don't get me wrong, I am not being judgemental about your perspective. I think if you find partners who share the same outlook, why couldn't it work? Not all women are looking for a permanent partner, either. Some of my women friends even have a term for it: all they want is a f*** buddy, someone safe to be with when they feel the need. No strings attached, two consenting adults. I personally do not think I could get what I need out of a relationship like that, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it.
I also would be curious to see if that kind of relationship really works for people, from a male perspective. So please keep us posted.
Think41self
Julie

Hi Comf,
A most interesting post! I have to say that the philosophy you share with us is completely acceptable to me. I have had the situation you describe and it was pretty simple (fun too).
The key to success with such a plan is that the non-commital feelings are mutual. If and when that changes in one of the parties involved things could go horribly awry.
Of course marriage ended all that sort of thinking for me personally but if others find such an arrangement beneficial, more power to them!
Julie

But to be Loved Alone

Share this