You are currently browsing the archives for May 2010

Love or sex: choose

  • May 31, 2010 at 11:32 am

In the Landmark Forum, there is an exercise on choice, in which a volunteer sits in a chair on stage and is offered pretend ice cream. “Chocolate or vanilla: choose,” says the facilitator. The volunteer then chooses one flavor or the other and typically gives a reason to choose it: taste, likes it better, etc. This goes on until the forum participant finally learns that the correct answer is, “I choose chocolate / vanilla because I choose chocolate / vanilla.” We choose because that is the choice we make, and the lesson of Landmark is that all of life is a choice. Deciding to do something kills off one of the options; choosing allows us to move forward with free will.

Yesterday, I had 10 minutes’ notice to prepare my son and myself for his father picking him up and keeping him with him for five days. That was not my choice, and it always leaves me feeling lonely when Patrick leaves – especially abruptly. So I was home alone last night from about 6 pm on, watching some movies from Netflix and on the DVR, feeling lonely. And I got to thinking that a partner would be nice, if only to snuggle. Of course, sex is good too, but the intimacy is what I really miss when I’m alone. I’ve grown accustomed to having another person in the house, and Patrick is a great snuggler.

When single folks are alone and feeling lonely, they often have a backup plan, namely that “booty call” to keep them company. I know I’ve had them in the past, but the truth last night was that I didn’t just want to have a “wham bam, thank you, ma’am” and move along. I wanted to make love.

I’ve long held the belief that there is a difference among sex, making love, and fucking. All have their place, often within one relationship. Sex is good, no doubt, but the intimacy is often lacking. Sex happens as a matter of course, out of need, desire, or obligation. Fucking is animalistic and happens when we’ve been revving up for a bit and just want to penetrate or be penetrated. But making love is pure intimacy, when we’re at our most vulnerable, laying bare our insecurities along with our clothes and letting another person see us for who we are. There’s kissing, touching, loving, and snuggling along with the sex. We feel connected on a level that words cannot easily explain.

Unfortunately, there’s not a 900 number for a “making love call.” It’s based on a relationship that’s built over time and consists of attraction, compatibility, and love. It’s not something I can create at the drop of a hat, yet it’s something for which I search. I have plenty of male friends, and I enjoy their energy and attentions, but I can’t call any of them to make love with me. I choose making love and having a relationship. Perhaps soon it will choose me as well.

Friends with benefits

  • May 24, 2010 at 12:44 pm

I’ve been thinking a lot about this term “friends with benefits.” Some people call them “FBs” or shorten to “FWB”—regardless, it usually means a friend who’s available for the occasional booty call. I want to challenge that definition today. I believe that we should all be looking for FWBs.

“Hold on!” you might be thinking. “I want a relationship, not just an FWB.” My retort is that all relationships should start with friendship. Perhaps one of the benefits is a relationship. What constitutes a good relationship, though? I believe you need a solid friendship and good sex / intimacy to have a relationship. Unfortunately, too many people build on sex. When that wanes—which, I promise you, it will—where does that leave the relationship? Usually, that’s when couples fall apart, namely because they don’t have a solid base.

I know of what I speak. I have had one of the two men with whom I was in love tell me, “I want to be your best friend, but you insist you already have one. How do you think that makes me feel?” Honestly, I hadn’t thought about it. I had always separated friends from relationships. Since I have a bunch of male friends, I had a male best friend at the time, but we were not good dating partners. The person who became the dating partner felt slighted because he didn’t fill my best friend slot.

With the other “in love” man (my ex-husband), we had sex way too early on; it defined our relationship. Although we became best friends, the sex waned with the birth of our son, and we had no idea who we were for each other. The friendship hadn’t been established as the reason we were together, so we had no solid foundation.

If you grew up when I did, you’re probably well aware of the three-date rule: by the third date, if you’re not having sex, you’re not going anywhere. I dated a guy for two months and didn’t get anything; doesn’t that make us just friends? Then I had to step back and say, “What’s wrong with being friends?”

I currently have an FWB. He is one of my best friends, and we occasionally share the benefit of sex. He’s not a long-term relationship for me for other reasons, but he’s a friend before he’s anything else. As I move forward in the dating realm, I’m looking for a friend. I’m tossing that three-date rule out the window. I want to build a solid friendship with someone before I jump into bed with him. I think I’m modeling my life off Jules on Cougar Town.

The scary part is that this strategy leaves me vulnerable. My best friend and lover in one person? Open myself to someone so much? What if he leaves? I’ll be devastated! Yes, that’s very true, but if I don’t allow myself the opportunity to have a true friendship with benefits, I may miss the boat on having the best of all worlds and a really wonderful relationship.

Happiness: Is it live or is it Memorex?

  • May 19, 2010 at 10:32 am

This weekend, a friend and I were talking about the elusiveness of happiness. He has been searching for it, and his belief is that most people who say they’re happy really aren’t. Of course, my next question was, “Do you think I’m really happy?” He said that, yes, he sees me as one of the truly happy people.

That got me thinking. Are most people happy? This friend (R) and I have both gone through Landmark Education, and R is pretty deeply immersed in it. My complaint about that whole system is that they’re selling happiness in a beautiful box with pretty ribbons – but too many people are unable to even grasp the box, let alone open it. Why is that?

If you listen to Landmark, the reason is that most people are living from the past. Things happened, and they’ve built their lives around the stories they’ve created because of those events. For instance, a preschooler gets laughed at for falling and being silly and ends up becoming shy and reserved because people will laugh at him if he’s extroverted. To the uninitiated, this would be akin to “baggage,” which we all have. The question then becomes, how do we deal with that baggage?

Unfortunately, it seems that most people are just “phoning it in.” They aren’t actively involved in the game of life. You know a person like this: he blames his job, spouse, or the weather on his foul mood. He’s the person who doesn’t take control of his life. Happiness is a choice, so why do so few people choose it?

One way to become happier is to start being that person. Just like the Memorex commercials of old, the audience couldn’t tell if the recording was the real deal or not. Others around you won’t be able to tell if you’re pretending to be happy or if you’re really, truly happy. Choose one thing everyday for which you’re grateful – even if it’s just that you got out of bed. Start smiling more. Imagine your life as you want it to be and write down those affirmations daily. Just like any other habit, happiness can be learned. Sure, they’ll be roadblocks along the path, but it’s the way you respond to those obstacles that defines you. Will you let another’s crummy mood make you angry? Or will you accept that she is in charge of her emotions, just like you’re in charge of yours? That difference in perspective is what separates happy folks from everyone else.

Try it; you may just find yourself really enjoying life.

Grow up – and shut up

  • May 9, 2010 at 6:22 pm

There comes a time when we learn that the world isn’t all about us. Our parents try to instill that idea in us through many tactics. For instance, today Patrick went to a birthday party, and yesterday we went out to buy his little friend a present. Patrick’s favorite thing right now is Iron Man, so he gravitated toward those items during our trip to Wal-Mart (I know; I’m not a big Wally World fan, but it’s so inexpensive!). I had to remind him a couple of times that we were looking for N, not him. He got it and picked out Connect Four, a cute card, and some Spider-Man stickers (N’s favorite).

Sometimes, though, these lessons from our childhood escape us. I know that one of my things is that, like Iron Man, I’m a bit narcissistic. I like to talk about myself. In fact, when I talk to my friend C nearly daily, I routinely monopolize the first 5-10 minutes of the conversation and then have to stop myself to say, “Okay, I’ve talked enough. How are you?” Like GI Joe said, “Knowing is half the battle,” so at least I know I talk about myself a lot.

This weekend, while hanging out with my friend R, I really, really wanted to have the conversation be all about me – but I couldn’t. He was sharing some personal information that I knew was hard for him to bring to light and, as a good, caring friend, I needed to be there 100% and listen. I had to shut up and offer empathy and genuine concern (which I had, of course; I wasn’t faking). I didn’t get an opportunity to share my thoughts on what he had told me or to ask all of the heartfelt questions I had about, well, me … but that’s not what R needed. At that point, I needed to be a good friend and remember that our time was about him, not me.

On Mothers Day, when we honor our moms for being there for us, I am reminded that I need to always take into consideration other people’s feelings and thoughts and be there for them. It doesn’t necessarily mean I need to put other people first, but I do need to be present during conversations – with my son or others – and really appreciate them. As human beings, we classify good friends as those who listen to us and provide great feedback – and that’s the person I want to be.

An empty vessel’s quest to be filled

  • May 6, 2010 at 2:03 pm

Typically, at around 18, newly graduated “adults” head off to college or Europe or wherever on their quest to “find themselves.” Although most of us don’t seem to really find ourselves until much later in life, the seeds tend to be planted at this time. Lately, I am either attracting or more keenly aware of these people who have not yet found themselves. In essence, they are empty vessels who are seeking to be filled by anything or anyone.

If I had to hazard a guess, I would say most empty people walking around suffer from a lack of self-confidence, codependence, and depression. They are fearful of the world around them and tie their identities to others. But, if you never know who you are as a person, how can you truly be in a relationship with anyone else? I don’t care if it’s a friend, lover, or business partner; you need to be your own person.

When these people are not in relationships, they appear to be angry. They lash out. Everything is about them and everyone is against them. They don’t have any security within themselves, so everything else has to be about them, right? Everyone’s out to get them. It’s a sad, lonely existence. Perhaps getting into a relationship to find identity there is the only way these empty people can feel whole – at least momentarily.

Once upon a time, we used to call these types “fixer-uppers.” In relationships, there was typically a fixer and one who needed to be fixed. The problem, however, is that once the “broken” person is fixed, s/he asks him/herself who s/he really is – and often realizes it’s not the person after whom s/he has been modeling for so long. Then come the feelings of true – although often short-lived – identity. “I am not the person you think I am! I am my own person! You can’t accept me for who I am!”

Famke Janssen & Patrick Stewart in "The Perfect Mate"

The best example of this I can muster is an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation (“The Perfect Mate”) in which the Enterprise is transporting an empathic metamorph, who bonds with Picard. She has learned everything in her life to be for her mate. “I am for you, Alrik of Valt,” is her mantra – and she is. She is not for herself. That is who these empty vessels are; they want so much to make others happy that they sacrifice themselves in the process.

The tragedy is that she bonds with Picard – yet is betrothed to another. She says that, since she is an empath, her husband will never know, but how can she be happy in that relationship? If she had created her own identity, outside of a potential partner, she could always rely on herself while providing so much more depth to the relationship.

The problem with being for someone else is that, while it’s flattering to have another human being want to be all things to you, it gets old – for everyone. How can one person take full responsibility for another’s happiness? It’s not possible. Eventually, the person who is not true to him/herself will be frustrated that the other person is not as appreciative of the efforts as s/he might think is appropriate. The other half of the partnership will feel the burden of having a partner who must be supported and built up to find him/herself. It’s a lose-lose situation.

To create a successful relationship of any kind, both parties need to be complete and whole within themselves. It’s enough work to keep ourselves happy, much less to have to worry about how our loved ones and business associates are doing. Until the empty vessel is filled, however, s/he will continue to be on a quest for the proper “Kool-aid” to make him/her feel whole.