Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
I think my default is "you" with the inteneded meaning of "one". But I will try to remember that!
2. Erase? You mean because you think you would take the 'you' literally and be offended that I was implying you were straight? Or did I miss something.
3. In any case.... what does that have to do with therapy?
Her disability was incidental, as she has a degenerative condition and we have known each other for 6.5 years and she was originally healthy looking when we met (she was in a lot pain, though).
I was totally happy to date a disabled chick, not that it's been any fantasy of mine- I just liked it when I got there. I've thought about it and decided that it was because it made me feel helpful and it was a little erotic to be in her service. (She really honestly needs 24 home health care workers, frankly, so I really was waiting on her hand and foot while she was living with me.)
I don't know what devotees attraction is. Are they control freaks, or helpful, or maybe enjoy the role of serving another (I thought it was kind of hot to be waiting on her hand and foot)? I'd really be interested to know.
The whole taking and posting of photos is just so beyond the scope of what I could imagine. How does someone wind up there? If it was private use, I could understand more though still object to it, but the whole uploading thing is a major violation and hard to understand the motives of for me. Maybe it was money or bragging rights? Anyway, it does lead me to believe that there is a definite difference between us.
I thank you for your understanding and good faith.
With men, I might not be attracted to a guy until I get to know him, and I certainly know the phenomenon of being attracted to a guy until I get to know him. I'm turned off by jerks. Nothing unusual there. The part I'm interested in is how attractive can turn into attraction and under what circumstances unattractive can turn into attraction. Obviously there are limits as with my best girlfriend example and also probably with a man who was just too far out there in terms of deviating from my norm. In other words, I normally go for tall ectomorphic men. I have dated men shorter than I am and liked them, but I can't imagine being attracted to someone 4 feet tall no matter how brilliant and funny. The same goes Stephen Hawking. I can admire him but don't want to have sex with him.
The flip side must be being so attracted to one trait that the rest of the attached human doesn't matter. I can't imagine anyone wanting to be sought after only for a physical attribute, and when one does, they're usually considered as shallow as the person who only seeks one physical attribute.
With that in mind, this is as much for you as for Mr. Ven:
"Only God, my dear, could love you for yourself alone and not your yellow hair."
If I'm still following correctly... you're saying that those 'social engineers' tried to make you straight??
Not. Okay. Ever.
I'm sorry to hear that.
* Also, because I'm going off SNs and not little pictures (which often helps me remember better) I find it hard to keep people's genders let alone orientations straight. So it's not like I go "ahh yes - it's this person who is male, therefore likes women" it's more like "I'm going to mention a hypothetical target of either gender in a general way" but I understand/respect your aversion to my use of the word 'you' and I'll try to remember it next time.
And, I have to say, this may be more a result of lower attraction not libido, for a variety of reasons, not just the weight. I agree with the take that LBS sounds more like she's looking for excuses, but in all fairness to her, I have to say, my ex, a trim, attractive 120 when we met, blew up in short order to like 165 and frankly, I kind of lost my attraction to her. It did not kill my libido, but it killed my attraction to her.
@GIMP & many: I don't want to be objectified either. This is sooo subjective and a bright line rule is really difficult. I think, in this case, the pooch is screwed and I don't think there's any unscrewing it, but definitely, let her make the first repentant moves. Having said that, two things: first, as others have said, there is nothing really wrong (aside from the creepy co-dependency/control vibe in the case of a disability) with her being attracted to some physical attribute of yours - maybe she is a devotee...so what? I'm a devotee of blondes. Secondly, while you quite reasonably feel deeply violated, just as any woman whose juvenile boyfriend posted her nude pics without permission might, her motives (like those of the juvenile boyfriends) might be less about exploiting you than about bragging. And there is a world of difference...most of which is made up of respect and admiration...which are the things which differentiate being objectified versus appreciated.
A fetish - as others have said - is different from an attraction.
I'm 6' tall. I've been with a number of guys who said they liked this. And then there was that one guy I made out with who kept saying "you're...so...tall..." and just flat-out staring at me with his mouth hanging open. Whole different vibe there.
And whoever pointed out that liking a disability is really damn different from liking a particular bodily feature is bang on. I would never want to be with someone who was attracted to me because they thought I was weak or helpless. Just ewww.
FFF should take "yes" for an answer and not go creating problems where there aren't any (if her partner DOES cheat at some point, deal with it then, but we don't serve ourselves by eliminating the possibility of dating or moving in with any and all people who might cheat, as we then can't date).
I advise against LBS using sex that she doesn't seem particularly enthusiastic about to incentivize weight loss. The possibilities of backfires (she's not attracted to him even once he loses the weight, she feels pressured to have sex she doesn't want to have to hold up her end of the bargain while he's losing the weight, he gets into a shame spiral if he doesn't lose the weight because he's also blaming himself for his wife's lack of attraction, etc.) outweigh the possible gain from the incentivizing (which we don't know will necessarily be effective).
Um, no. I'm afraid posting a person's pics without asking permission (in fact knowing that they don't want you to!) is still objectification, even if you're doing it to brag. A person who sees their partner as a person would respect their opinions, preferences, etc. instead of just going ahead and posting pics online the same way they'd post pics of their shiny new car or iPhone.
Seriously, I would LOVE to be objectified - a girl who was dying to fuck me because my height, hair color, forearms, shape of my nose, length of my tongue? I might start quoting Lou Gehrig and declare myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth. Men usually get objectified for their money. Can I trade?
Avast - I am not religious but I have found myself saying "Amen" after reading your posts.
Um, again (for the zillionth time), there's a difference!
I love being objectified! It's not the same as some racist fuck thinking that your ethnicity makes you desirable because of some notion they have about what sex with you will be (based soley on your colour).
Did you not read the example I gave of a straight male who doesn't appreciate being fetishized for his race? Am I wrong to assume you're white?
I'm afraid posting a person's pics without asking permission (in fact knowing that they don't want you to!) is still objectification,
I just don't agree - it's immaturity (assholery, as I said, and clearly a dumping offense), and in retrospect, I should not have said that 'respect' was part of the difference, because posting a pic in knowing violation is definitely not being respectful. However, I think objectification implies exploitation - using someone solely for the particular attribute - without any other regard for the rest of the person, and I just don't think that's a fair reading in this case.
I'm 6' tall. I've been with a number of guys who said they liked this.
I'm 5'11" and I'm one of those guys...I have been blown away by tall women (most recently, a married woman at a social function) and while I might have had that inward initial powerful reaction, my point is that maturity is what distinguishes those of us who know not to act that way towards someone (married or not) and acting like a boor.
Both malice and immaturity can lead to cruelty, but the intent is generally only present in the first case and intent does make a difference. That was my point.
I didn't mean to invalidate why a black woman may feel objectified by a white man preferring their skin color. I get that. I was merely saying "hell yes" to Cocky's observation that being objectified would be totally cool by me, and probably for many (white? privileged? well-hung?) males.
Now if someone only wanted me for my citizenship and access to TimBits, then I might feel victimized.
Objectification is the process by which an abstract concept is made as objective as possible in the purest sense of the term. It is also treated as if it is a concrete thing or physical object. In this sense the term is a synonym to reification.
This term is also used to describe the treatment of a human being as a thing, disregarding his/her personality or sentience. Philosopher Martha Nussbaum[1] has argued that something is objectified if any of the following factors is present:
Instrumentality – if the thing is treated as a tool for one's own purposes;
Denial of autonomy – if the thing is treated as if lacking in agency or self-determination;
Inertness – if the thing is treated as if lacking in agency;
Ownership – if the thing is treated as if owned by another;
Fungibility – if the thing is treated as if interchangeable;
Violability – if the thing is treated as if permissible to damage or destroy;
Denial of subjectivity – if the thing is treated as if there is no need to show concern for the 'object's' feelings and experiences.
After our first kid, the hormonal change made me not desire sex, which was a HUGE change for me who normally was the instigator in our relationship. While it wasn't anything my beloved had done wrong, I still felt that way. I hoped eventually the desire would return and I knew for sure it wouldn't if I just avoided sex. So I often said things like the above or referenced the idea of taking one for the team.
This by no means meant that I was being taken advantage of by my beloved or being cajoled or berated into unwilling sex, it means that I knew I still held desire there somewhere and while the physical part of it wasn't obvious I was hoping it would reawaken.
I don't know about the actual issue of weight, that goes deeper, I was just referring to the single statement.
I'm a straight, 'smaller' BBW, and if I find out a guy likes heavy girls, I'm stoked- because I don't have to worry as much about being passed over for a skinny girl, or wonder if he likes my body type. I know the stakes are different for BBW/ SSBBWs and people with disabilities, but I still find the attitude perplexing. Why wouldn't you want someone who wanted you, especially if you have a trait that puts you outside the mainstream? Many people don't want to be objectified, and I understand that (I genuinely like it, but I realize that puts me into the minority) and of course, no one should ever violate their significant other's privacy in the way GIMP's girlfriend did. But, that being said, what's so wrong about someone who likes people who use wheelchairs dating a person who uses a wheelchair?
People with fetishes are often thought of as sex-obsessed freaks, and to be fair, I'm sure some of them are just that. But, I'm also sure that there are some perfectly reasonable people who happen to be strongly sexually attracted to someone because they're fat, or use a wheelchair, or a gigantic variety of other reasons. I personally love being desired, and I think most Savage subscribers would agree that sexual desire and compatibility are very important components of romantic relationships.
I think what it often comes down to is that people want to be loved for who they are, not just sexually desired for a certain trait. While I do understand that, is it so bad to let a person who is initially attracted to that one trait get to know you better, to see if there's a connection? While GIMP is of course welcome to date whomever she chooses, I just thought this was interesting food for thought. Would love to hear what others think about this. (here ends the longest.comment.ever!)
I'm a straight, 'smaller' BBW, and if I find out a guy likes heavy girls, I'm stoked- because I don't have to worry as much about being passed over for a skinny girl, or wonder if he likes my body type. I know the stakes are different for BBW/ SSBBWs and people with disabilities, but I still find the attitude perplexing. Why wouldn't you want someone who wanted you, especially if you have a trait that puts you outside the mainstream? Many people don't want to be objectified, and I understand that (I genuinely like it, but I realize that puts me into the minority) and of course, no one should ever violate their significant other's privacy in the way GIMP's girlfriend did. But, that being said, what's so wrong about someone who likes people who use wheelchairs dating a person who uses a wheelchair?
People with fetishes are often thought of as sex-obsessed freaks, and to be fair, I'm sure some of them are just that. But, I'm also sure that there are some perfectly reasonable people who happen to be strongly sexually attracted to someone because they're fat, or use a wheelchair, or a gigantic variety of other reasons. I personally love being desired, and I think most Savage subscribers would agree that sexual desire and compatibility are very important components of romantic relationships.
I think what it often comes down to is that people want to be loved for who they are, not just sexually desired for a certain trait. While I do understand that, is it so bad to let a person who is initially attracted to that one trait get to know you better, to see if there's a connection? While GIMP is of course welcome to date whomever she chooses, I just thought this was interesting food for thought. Would love to hear what others think about this. (here ends the longest.comment.ever!)
TBH, I think that the BBW "fetish" is a weird phenom where a simple personal preference is deemed a fetish just because our culture is so damn fat phobic! I think there are guys who legitimately fetishize that body type but the impression I'm under is that most just find it attractive in the same way one might like big breasts or small breasts or blonde hair or whatever else.
In another era my body type would be seen as really unappealing "she doesn't eat enough!" (yes, I do). And I'm sure the same people who naturally find me attractive now would be considered "fetishists" without actually fetishizing my body type.
Am I way off base here?
My main objection is that sex as a reward for weight loss is not the same thing as sex as an expression of desire. It's a systematized form of begging for sex from someone who patently doesn't want sex with you for its own sake. Who on earth wants sex from a person who doesn't desire them? How depressing. Over time, he will come to deeply internalize that she doesn't in fact desire him, even once he does manage to shed the outer layer, if all she does is stick to the proposed reward system. Then when someone else displays some genuine interest in his restored physique, he's going to jump at the offer, and either divorce her or cheat on her.
Those are the risks as I see them. My advice to Letter Writer: Try out the system if you think it will get him off his ass, but I suggest you go out of your way to find every opportunity to demonstrate that you adore the shit out of him in other ways, during the whole process.
I have given this a lot of thought, because in the first year or so of our relationship I spent a lot of time agonizing over my guilt that I was objectifying him. He seriously did not care, was just happy were having such great sex. Eventually I just accepted that his disability was inextricable from his life experiences and who he was, and I was into the entire package, so to speak, and stopped worrying as much. I just was into him and that was that.
That said, I don't hang out with devotees. Because devotees are, frankly, creepers. It's the community, I think, that makes it creepy. It's one thing to be attracted to some detail about someone, and another thing entirely to hang out with other people obsessing about it. Things get especially weird when the quality obsessed over is a quality that makes the person hugely marginized in society and/or public policy (race, weight, disability all fall into this category.)
As for GIMP's gf - what she did wasn't just a violation of privacy, it was a violation of sexual autonomy. She offered up GIMP's body for other parties to beat off on, without GIMP's knowledge or permission. Essentially, she involved GIMP in a sexual act against her will. Unforgivable doesn't cover it.
One more thing: people who say that GIMP's chances of finding a good partner are low b/c she's a lesbian in a chair are overstating it. We all have things that handicap us when it comes to finding partners, and being in a chair is SO MUCH LESS of a handicap than being an asshole is, or being boring, or being shy.
Being a gimp can even be an advantage. First of all, you stand out. People are gonna notice you; you're never gonna be the anonymous person in the back of the room that no one notices. Second of all, the chair is a great asshole filter (though not, as GIMP has discovered to her grief, a perfect one).
But in general, someone who has never before considered dating a girl in a wheelchair can be brought around if you're awesome. Someone who is able-bodied will have the running start, it's true, but if they're not as awesome as you, you're gonna win that race every time.
I really think that in the long run, our chances are pretty much even.
Oh, and it seems like GIMP's fetishist saw her as more than a fetish, or the relationship would have been obviously one-dimensional. Still an asshole, but it seems like it's not all bad to be the object of a fetish, as long as you're also seen as a human being, too. And no other bullshit, like posting pics, is going on.
@134: For a while there (maybe still?), natural breasts were a fetish category in mainstream het-porn. Which seems profoundly sad to me.
ARE YOU ON BIRTH CONTROL???
If you are, there's more you might want to consider than just having your hub lose weight. Ask your doctor about the potential side effects of the birth control you're on, because some of them can cause loss of libido. Changing your prescription can do wonders.
Dan's said before that partners have an obligation to keep themselves relatively attractive to their mates, so your husband isn't off the hook for this--but if your own loss of libido is an issue, I would check on your birth control and any other prescription meds (if applicable) and get yourself screened for depression.
And guess what? You and your husband could very well share the same prescription: "Honey, I'm just not feeling it. You're overweight and that's an issue, but completely separate from that, it's not clicking in my head. But you know what, jogging is good exercise and exercise helps your mood, so--wanna throw on some shoes and go out with me?" Two birds with one stone: your hub loses weight and you raise your serotonin and endorphin levels, which are important chemicals in your overall feeling of well-being. It may not be a magic cure, but it might help (and can't hurt).
ARE YOU ON BIRTH CONTROL???
If you are, there's more you might want to consider than just having your hub lose weight. Ask your doctor about the potential side effects of the birth control you're on, because some of them can cause loss of libido. Changing your prescription can do wonders.
Dan's said before that partners have an obligation to keep themselves relatively attractive to their mates, so your husband isn't off the hook for this--but if your own loss of libido is an issue, I would check on your birth control and any other prescription meds (if applicable) and get yourself screened for depression.
And guess what? You and your husband could very well share the same prescription: "Honey, I'm just not feeling it. You're overweight and that's an issue, but completely separate from that, it's not clicking in my head. But you know what, jogging is good exercise and exercise helps your mood, so--wanna throw on some shoes and go out with me?" Two birds with one stone: your hub loses weight and you raise your serotonin and endorphin levels, which are important chemicals in your overall feeling of well-being. It may not be a magic cure, but it might help (and can't hurt).
Sex is complicated for women with disabilities. Sure. But I’m appalled at the unquestioned assumptions here that GIMP is afraid that if she stands up for herself in this relationship that she’ll never date again.
This is clearly not true. She’s used to dating and used to being picky. She is totally datable and knows it. Assuming that she needs to feel grateful for scraps and advising her to tolerate this level of abuse, manipulation and whatever because she’s a GIMP and can’t expect better is horrible.
It’s not ok. Nobody needs to tolerate abuse. GIMP can expect better and she knows it.
I expected better from at least some in this crowd.
Sex is (or should be) a given in a relationship. It shouldn't be withheld on a whim. Especially if you've been trying to make your possibly-only-recently-low libido come back into play, too.
What you might try instead is holding out on some particular sex act or toy or scenario that he likes, though, and using that as a reward. (Blowjobs, anal, bondage, buying a naughty outfit, watching porn together, etc.) That way, you don't have an excuse to not have sex (or a reason to hold back if you just happen to feel frisky some night), but you do have an interesting and motivating reward. Yes?
When you meet someone with whom you're actually sexually compatible, you don't have to fall in love with them first for it to be hot.
And GIMP got hooked up with a fucked up person. I wouldn't use the term "abuse" exactly because abuse requires a certain amount of hatred and maliciousness. But GIMP, your lover is fucked in the head and needs to get her shit together. The best favour you can give her is to get out of her way so she can do it. DTMF indeed.
FFF? He told you he thought about polyamory, and then moved in with you. Which means he decided against it. Relax. And yes, for some of us, poly would be a deal breaker. I've had enough experiences with it to know it's not for me. If you have time and energy to spend on another lover, you're not giving me enough. Fuck that.
I wouldn't use the term "abuse" exactly because abuse requires a certain amount of hatred and maliciousness.
Not to get needlessly inflammatory but tell that to everyone who was molested by a pedophile who thought they were just "loving" the child. Also, tell that to every person who got beaten up by a partner who "didn't mean to do it".
I don't know if I'd call posting (headless) pictures of a person as abuse, but it's callous and disrespectful as fuck.
I'm 100% with you on the polyamoury tip though. I will never understand how bewildered people here are by the notion that nonmonogamy could be a dealbreaker.
On top of that, I would say give oral sex as a reward for keeping to goals and plans in diet/exercise as opposed to losing the actual pounds. You can also couch it as, "Hey, honey, you know, I think it would be a lot easier for you to have the willpower to be self-denying in weight loss if you got more sexual satisfaction." Which is true.
Sound like a good plan for any gender?
What about dating someone who puts a lot of time and energy into work? Or a very important hobby? Or a family member who requires a lot of care? Or has CHILDREN?
I don't think the "time and energy" argument holds water, as such.
Being poly OR being monogamous can be a deal-breaker; I wish more people would talk about what they really wanted, *before* getting married, or *before* moving in together. Would save a lotta heartache in the long run.
GIMP: Total violation of trust. I'm not bugged that your soon-to-be-ex is a devotee; it IS super disturbing that she would share a photograph of you with others, behind your back. IDK if you should get back together with her, either. That's a huge hurdle to overcome.
Um.... you realize that strengthens the argument right?
If you're in a relationship with someone who has all of those responsibilities and then wants to split the small remainder of their time between you and another person (or people) then there isn't going to be much left over for you.
Plus you realize there's a difference between "a family member is in failing health" (not a choice) and "I'm fucking some other girl when I could be fucking you instead." (definitely a choice!).
Please understand this is not a judgemental question, but one out of genuine interest. We seem to be different and I would like to understand that difference - maybe to understand myself better.
And also understand that I'm not talking about someone promising not to do something and then doing it on the sly - I meant, supposing that both had agreed on non-monogamy for both, beforehand ; no lying.
I've been cheated on by my husband. The sex part of it was actually the only thing that didn't hurt - I pitied the mistress for going through with such a bad lover as my husband, and I seriously questionned her good taste (the husband's attractiveness has steadily gone downhill since our marriage). The betrayal of the vows, the discovery that he had not the moral backbone he had pretented to have all those years, and most of it the danger to the family unit (understand : the children's wellbeing) were very painful. Him constantly shoving his affair in my face was very humiliating.
I've been since with a lover, older and very good at sex. I don't feel like I own him. I feel like it would do other unhappy women, such as I was, a world of good to have some great fucks with him. I wouldn't mind sharing him with whomever would need a good sex experience as a confidence booster.
I didn't go into this relationship (3 years now) with a LTR in mind. But the fact is that we're very well-suited on some points, and incompatible on others - like my way of raising my kids. Even though we're very compatible on sex, if I fall in lust with anybody else, I won't want to miss on that kind of sex because I already love someone else.
It's like a meal. If a little diversity comes my way, I don't want to be guilted into not giving it a bite.
Besides, as a mother of 3, I feel I have the experience of deeply loving more than one person at the same time - each of my children has both a share of my love, and all my love.
Even among many women posters?! You forget that a whole lot of women posters have the perspective of having been through pregnancy, which causes some pretty extreme body changes, some of them permanent. If my husband said yeah, I know it's because you had our kids, but I can't deal with your wrinkly belly any longer, he'd be one hateful POS. Fortunately he's not. That's one place my perspective is coming from -- a long-term relationship where we actually have dealt with many physical changes over the years. (We met something like 25 years ago -- show me someone who doesn't change in 25 years.)
As for "obese" -- feh. You have no proof he's obese, and you certainly have no proof that obese people can't be sexy to their chosen partners (it's not like the guy wants to have sex with you anyway). Just look around you any day, you'll see fat people walking around holding hands and gazing into each other's eyes like anyone else.
If you aren't attracted to him because he needs to lose weight, you were really never attracted to him in the first place. He was just convenient.
If I were him I'd rather stroke it and be fat than put up with your hyper-proscriptive attitude about sex.
Most devotees don't objectify their partners, and the attraction to the disability is just a small part of an otherwise healthy relationship. It's stories like this one, though, that give devotees the undeserved reputation as fetishizing stalkers.
First you say...
"Would you care to explain what feelings would non-monogamy from your partner elicit in you ?"
And I think, "Oh. Cheating. I'd dump him."
But then you say...
"And also understand that I'm not talking about someone promising not to do something and then doing it on the sly - I meant, supposing that both had agreed on non-monogamy for both, beforehand ; no lying."
I wouldn't agree to it.
It's no an acceptable option for me whatsoever. I realize that's probably not very helpful but feel free to ask anything else on the subject that you can think of?
"You also make it sound as if she could just make herself want the fat version of him - that's actually the vibe I get from many of the women here, and maybe it is true for some women, but is it universally true that women can do that?"
NO.
I hate the reputation my gender gives me sometimes.
"If you aren't attracted to him because he needs to lose weight, you were really never attracted to him in the first place. He was just convenient. "
Haha! Bullshit.
Not everyone finds obesity sexy.
Most people, male or female, do, in my experience. That is, they don't have to make a huge effort, they just don't STOP being attracted to the person they married because of something superficial changing. Naturally that doesn't necessarily hold for short-term relationships, and I wouldn't expect it to, but if you're planning on being in for the long haul (not everyone is cut out for that, I'm sure), you've got to be prepared to roll with your own and the other person's inevitable body changes.
I thought that was the definition of a devotee.
Eirene @172: “Most people, male or female, do, in my experience. That is, they don't have to make a huge effort, they just don't STOP being attracted to the person they married because of something superficial changing.”
Like you say, I think that’s something that happens when you’ve been together a long time. When you look at a person you see not just the person they are today, but also the cute nineteen-year-old you had such a crush on back in the day. The two images are superimposed in a way. I remember my aunt and my grandmother arguing with me about my father’s hair colour. I said it was black, they said it was light brown — which it probably had been, thirty years earlier. Even after he walked into the room they couldn’t see that his hair had darkened.
I'm not saying that. I am pointing out the superficiality of the writer's letter. If your relationship is based on surface physicality then the chances are small that that relationship will last. Bodies change, people gain/lose weight due to a million things. If that genuine attraction isn't there, it really won't be there when that person gains/loses weight.
For some people attraction is more physical and for some people attraction has more to do with love. You can love a person very much but I think most people have a point where their partner's appearance (or smell, or etc) becomes so repulsive that no matter how much they still love them, they aren't attracted to them.
I think that people run the gamut from attraction being more love based to being more visually based but I don't think that has any bearing on whether the person is "cut out" for monogamy. Luckily I've never lost attraction to someone I was in a relationship with but if he was covered in horrible burns all over his body I might not feel attraction to him (burn wounds can be distracting!) even though I still love him very much.
Not that anyone cares but IMHO it's not shallow to base attraction on appearance. What's shallow is letting appearance-based attraction determine love. As long as love is independent of appearance then I think we're fine.
/rant
I understood your premise but I don't really agree with it. (See my post above)
The idea that "true" attraction is impervious to any influence from what the person actually looks like is some serious Disney nonsense.
Maybe I should use a different word instead, like value. Value takes the form of respect, admiration, lots of attention. Overall it appears she does not value him and willing to withhold sex (punishment/reward system) is a totally asshole move.
Um, I can see where you're coming from there.
I don't know if that's the case with her, I'd imagine it's more like "I'm not attracted to him but if I force myself to have sex with him despite this will I be able to convince him that it's worthwhile to get back to the way he looked before?" * and thefore we will have willing/exciting sex again.
Personally I can't force myself to have sex with someone I don't find physically attractive. I'd have a very different career if I could.
In any case I think using sex as a 'reward' is kind of tacky in the context of a loving LTR so I think we're essentially on the same page.
Oh, not absolutely impervious, of course not. But I think it's just as silly to see it all the other way and say that it's a "breach of contract" to "let yourself go," as cockyballsup put it. In real life, this kind of thing happens all the time, and most people actually adapt fine to typical body changes in their partners. Being totally used to people insulates you from that kind of thing. Heck, with people I'm very familiar with, it's not so often that I step back and really see them anyway. One of my relatives is in her late eighties, and it's only very recently that I really saw her as "old." Someone who'd just met her five or ten years ago would likely have a very different view.
#175 seems almost a parallel to the transition story of last month in which the author's husband became her wife.
Mr Balls - I think it's been established that we can't say definitively which is the cart and which is the horse.
Yeah, your answer was not really helpful. Let me try again : why wouldn't you agree to non-cheating non-monogamy, I mean, the real reasons deep down ? Is it principles, then which ones ? Is it feelings, then which ones ? What kind of bad events would you expect to happen out of it ? Have you ever experienced anything that you didn't like, linked to something even remotely similar to sharing a sex partner (like when someone has dated one of your exes), or are you talking from theory more than from practice ?
I mean, I would have answered like you before being cheated on - but the actual experience was nothing like what I expected. My pro-monogamy stance was not very well thought out, it was just coherent with how I had been raised (people thought of as property, sex only for procreation or as a cement in a procreative relationship, sex not supposed to be ever enjoyable for me as a survivor, sex never considered for its enjoyment value only, but always in relation with building a relationship).
So, since you're a pretty articulate woman who seems to know her own mind, I'd love to know the grounds for your (and any other female posters', feel free to join in) pro-monogamy stance - since I can't use the stupidities of my raising as valid grounds against monogamishy.
Okay, that's easier to work with.
Hm. Okay, let me start off by saying it's not a matter of principle. I don't think poly vs. mono is an ethical issue inherently - which is to say I don't think that poly relationships are inherently wrong or bad, they're just not for me. So everyone who's poly and wants to jump all over me for "attacking" poly relationships or whatever, keep in mind that I'm answering a direct question about why I'm not interested in them.
So why am I personally monogamous? There's many reasons, so I'll break them down (in no particular order)
1. Feelings
I consider myself somewhat naturally inclined to monogamy. When I'm in a relationship I tend to not even register other guys. I have no interest in pursuing others. On top of that I'm a pretty jealous person. I've never had a friend date an ex but I tend to dislike the girls my exes date beyond what's rational (even if I have absolutely NO interest in that ex). I've never been cheated on. So in terms of direct experience it's based on theory but it's an educated guess. I'm also a very competitive person. In the context of casual sex I don't care if the person I'm sleeping with is also sleeping with others (I'm very black and white about relationships v. casual sex) but I wouldn't want them getting with a friend of mine because of that competitiveness. I've also never been in a relationship with a guy who didn't express some degree of jealousness.
2. Pragmatics
One day I want to do the whole "get married, have kids" thing. Our culture isn't really optimally set up to accomodate that in a poly context.
In the context of my life now? There are (to my mind) two basic groups of poly relationships. The first is being in a monogamish relationship with the freedom of being single on the side and the second is a full on "multiple girlfriends/boyfriends" situation.
The former doesn't make any sense whatsoever for me and my needs. In my book, being single is a lot of fucking work. It's like trying to find a needle in a haystack. I'm very picky and so finding someone I'm even remotely attracted to involves endless sifting. It's not fun. If I'm in a relationship with someone I find attractive and I know is good in bed, why would I take a step back down to singledom and deal with all that bullshit again? Why would I (even for one night) choose a 99.9% chance of garbage over a 100% chance of being with someone worthwhile? Doesn't make sense.
Then there's the latter. No. Just no. Again, I'm lucky if I meet someone worthwhile every couple years let alone multiple people at once. Then there's the whole issue of balance (three people seems unfair in a hetero context). Plus, again, if I want to go on to have a stable "settled down" relationship I don't want to have to deal with that clusterfuck of legality/paternity/living situation etc. It's just so so needless for no discernable payoff to my mind.
3. Health!
Yes, that's right. Poly relationships up the chance of STIs (another experience I'm glad to say I've never had to deal with). Again, for what payoff?
4. Life experience
Number of healthy monogamous relationships I've seen: some.
Number of healthy poly relationships I've seen: none.
Oh sure, strangers on the internet (people who write in to Dan, people in the comments section) can go on about how it's so great. But what they describe sounds utterly unappealing to me and I'm getting their version. I don't know how their partner feels, I don't see how the relationship works, so it doesn't really hold much weight in my books.
What I have seen many times in real life is one partner who gives less of a shit than the other and decides to 'open up' the relationship. The other one doesn't want to lose them so he/she puts up with it despite the fact that it's painful. Sometimes the relationships fall apart quickly, sometimes they fall apart much later but they've always fallen apart (in my experience).
Obviously that's anecdotal and doesn't prove anything but when you haven't physically seen even one non-shitty example of something it doesn't really encourage you to try it. Especially when your gut, your logic, your partner, and your concern for your sexual health all say "NO" to poly.
That's for me. That's for my life and my experience. I have zero interest in "converting" people and if they want to do things that way it's their business and I'm sure it does work for some people and that's great.
I do like evolutionary psychology in general. I agree that it's subject to misinterpretation as there are people who learn only a little about it and race to all sorts of unwarranted conclusions. Just like there are armchair doctors and armchair everythings.
I don't agree that no one would advise an insecure pimply faced young woman to act confident. No one did because she didn't write to Dan, but if she had, that would have been on my list.
In fact, confidence is what's behind almost every bit of advice given to women. Take, for example, whether she should wear make-up. I've heard the advice that women should wear make-up, not because it makes them look better, but because it bespeaks confidence. It's her way of saying that she's confident in herself, that she's not afraid of attracting attention. Conversely, I've heard the advice that women shouldn't wear make-up because going without looks more confident. It's her way of saying that she's positive she looks great just the way she is.
"If you believe in evolution and psychology, then you must accept that each is true from perspective of the other. Evo-psych."
This is true, but misleading.
You can believe in both, yet believe that the connections people draw between them are wrong (or at least that they're no more than guesses).
Thank you.
Measurement is real. The skull is real. If you understand both, you must believe in phrenology.
Hunter's really showing his ignorance here.
Thanks a lot for the long reply.
Point 1 doesn't apply to me, but I'm very interested in your link between competitivity and jealousy. I happen to be totally non-competitive, although I usually do try to be the best I can be. I keep my efforts mostly private, to avoid competition, since I get no extra pleasure from being the best, and I hate being the worst. It's the efforts that give me joy, not the results. Perhaps my curious absence of jealousy stems from my personal distaste of competition ? Not to say there's anything wrong with being healthily competitive or jealous.
I've already covered point 2 in my life, and badly, though monogamously ; a very valid point. I happen to think now that monogamish relationships would be better to raise the kids, but it's all theory and no practice. Point 3 is very valid too - hopefully condoms should help. I have no data on point 4 : nobody in my age group has ever admitted to me to being polyamourous. Polygamy doesn't count, since the wives are not allowed to have more than one partner ; polygamy is a horror story that I've seen up close.
The payoff of being monogamish is : having very hot sex with other(s) guy(s) without causing any pain to my main lover whatsoever, since he agrees with it. And I'm pretty sure he does agree with all his heart. We don't live together. He's older and he likes to come and go as he wishes. You could call that a casual sex situation with friendship. But in fact it's more than that, our form of attachment runs very deep.
On my side, I'm not getting any younger and my ability to still interest guys whom I like (I'm picky too) is short-limited. And, while not ugly, I've never been that physically attractive to begin with. I don't want to miss out on that.
I don't think competitiveness and jealousy always go hand in hand. I think I would be a jealous type either way but the competitiveness definitely amps it up. So the whole "okay but I'm also prettier than her, right?" thing adds to it. I don't like being competitive. It mostly puts me at risk of feeling insecure which I don't like.
Re: condoms - Yeah outside of a relationship I'm religious about condom use - but they aren't perfect. They can break and leak and they don't effectively protect against HPV or herpes. I'm vaccinated against the most common forms of the former but still. The more people you involve, the greater risk you are at catching STIs (all other things kept equal).
Yeah, as for your situation it sounds like a very noncomittal relationship (he comes and goes as he pleases) to me I would consider that more as an FWB than poly? I've had FWBs where it wasn't one on one but that's not a relationship to my mind. And I had zero romantic feelings towards that person.
As for hot sex with other people? *shrug*
Honestly I've been with enough people to not have any curiousity anymore. If you're with someone who's top tier, chances are anyone else you could have sex with would be a step down. With a LOT of effort put in to even find someone who looks appealing. Lots of work, little payoff, needless risk, complicated, etc.
Doesn't appeal!
(Mr)Ms (Darcy)Driasis - I am no longer surprised at your knowing only six (accomplished women)attractive men. I now rather wonder at your knowing any.
Sorry, I couldn't resist that one, and there's a decent chance that Ms Cute will not be alone in appreciating it. (I hope Mr J is still among us, poor dear; he might derive the greatest enjoyment of anyone.) In truth, I could echo a good deal of post 184, the biggest differences being that I'm not particularly jealous and that I ought to receive a government stipend for refusing on principle to reproduce(not that I faced much demand). True, my perspective is backwards; during my period of activity it took me two or three years to find anyone who could at all see the point of me, while Ms Driasis is the other way around, but it comes out remarkably similar.
Just for fun, though, there was one short sentence in #184 that illustrated beautifully why Ms Driasis struck me as having the capcity to resemble Sister Mary Ignatius. Would anyone care to venture a guess?
You had better hope you are wrong, or your own future is mighty bleak. Nobody, and I mean nobody, looks the same at 50 -- hell, even 35 -- as they did at 23. If being able to overlook the ravages of time were a Disney fairy tale, there wouldn't be a married set of parents in the world, let alone grandparents. Everyone whose kids had reached 18 or who had otherwise hit 40 would be divorced, bitter, and lonely, while at the same time rejecting every potential mate of their own age. (And probably, foolishly, hitting on the likes of you -- a prospect that I already know makes you recoil in disgust -- because that's the standard of what constitutes "attractive").
Sure, I'm overstating the case, but so are you with the word "impervious." No, people aren't rendered blind by age, or by love. But they make allowances.
And so is "letting oneself go" a rather cruel overstatement in the majority of cases. Metabolisms slow, injuries and maladies accumulate, it becomes harder to maintain what was effortless in youth. Try keeping up that thrice-weekly 5K run with a good case of sciatica or plantar fasciitis, or when you're up four times a night with a fussy baby. People undergo difficult periods that cause them to put on weight (pregnancy, stress, medication) and then those fat cells are there for the rest of one's life; they never disappear, only deflate, waiting for the next restaurant meal to store away whatever excess calories they can grab.
You too, myd, are one day going to be old and ugly, just like the rest of us. Nobody escapes it. Best hope Disney had nothing to do with being able to see past it.
They say it costs over $100 000 over 18 years to raise a child. To raise a child. Let alone multiple children. :p
I think not having children is a wonderfully noble thing and should be rewarded. But financially speaking, not having children is its own reward.
Anyway, now to the good part. Was it the sentence where I offered to break it down? Perhaps I should become a nun...
Sigh.
Read my other posts. I'm not in the mood to recondense and synthesize them so you can see that I actually don't disagree with anything you said.
The truth is that it is possible for people's attractions to each other wax and wane and they may disappear or be dramatically diminished forever, but that the reasons for the loss of attraction is not necessarily because of a change in looks or weight gain or loss.
I was married to a man whose looks didn't noticeably change for 25 years, beyond the normal changes of aging: his body at 28 (which is how old he was when I met him), remains virtually identical to his body at 56. He is average weight and body type, and hasn't lost or gained more than maybe five pounds in all that time, nor has he started or stopped working out in a greater degree than he has done his entire adult life. He never sprouted wiry bushes of hair out of his nose or eyebrows, and he never "let himself go." His hair loss remained constant, but I've never found baldness or near-baldness unattractive. He is consistently taken for being 5-8 years younger than he is. Yet I lost all sexual attraction for him by the time he was 40. This, to me, was less about the way he looked than the sexual dynamic we had in place.
I have had two boyfriends whom I can not imagine I would ever be one jot less attracted to, despite any changes their bodies underwent as time has its cruel way with them. The attraction was almost in spite of their looks, if that makes sense.
Mr. Ven, @194: Your Austensplaning was dead-on, although that is an Elizabethan, rather than Darcynian utterance. As far as the Sr. Mary Ignatius reference, I am afraid I am unfamiliar with the text.
In my nearly 20 year relationship, frequency has ranged from once a month to twice a day-- It is entirely normal for the sex drive to disappear entirely for substantial amount of time after the birth of a child (this might range from 3 months to 2 years duration). Libido is also greatly influenced by other demands on time-- if you have three young children you probably don't have the same sex drive as you will have ten years later when those children require less moment to moment energy.
Now that I am in my mid forties, I find the libido has amped way up from my thirties--Why? Free time, more energy, more self knowledge, etc.
Also, in reference to the letter from the woman wanting her hubby to slim down.....I don't think weight is really the problem. And, if it is-- if some extra poundage on a man she truly loves has killed her libido--that doesn't bode well for a lifetime relationship with anyone, does it?
After all, no one stays the hot, young person we originally fell for-- we all age (some more gracefully than others). In my definition, love creates and includes attraction. If I compare a picture of my 49 year old husband to the 29 year old young man I first met, I suppose the the former would be, objectively speaking, less physically attractive. But, I find my husband hot, in the here and now. And that feeling on my part is probably only slightly related to his current "looks"-- it is instead, a layering of all the feelings of attraction I have had toward him for all these years.....
In my nearly 20 year relationship, frequency has ranged from once a month to twice a day--
It is entirely normal for the sex drive to disappear entirely for substantial amount of time after the birth of a child (this might range from 3 months to 2 years duration). Libido is also greatly influenced by other demands on time-- if you have three young children you probably don't have the same sex drive as you will have ten years later when those children require less moment to moment energy. For periods of time, either mine or my spouse's drive has been influenced (both positively and negatively) by prescription meds or illnesses. There have been periods of time when my husband was seriously unsatisfied with the lack of frequency AND periods of time when I was left wanting more frequency.
Now that I am in my mid forties, I find the libido has amped way up from my thirties--Why? Free time, more energy, more self knowledge, etc. Alas, as my husband enters midlife, he no longer is focused on daily sex. Over the years, we have both settled for less than we really wanted AND put in effort to give more than we really wanted. How else could two people live together for a lifetime??
Also, in reference to the letter from the woman wanting her hubby to slim down.....I don't think weight is really the problem. And, if it is-- if some extra poundage on a man she truly loves has killed her libido--that doesn't bode well for a lifetime relationship with anyone, does it?
After all, no one stays the hot, young person we originally fell for-- we all age (some more gracefully than others). In my definition, love creates and includes attraction. If I compare a picture of my 49 year old husband to the 29 year old young man I first met, I suppose the the former would be, objectively speaking, less physically attractive. But, I find my husband every bit as hot, in the here and now as I did then. And that feeling on my part is probably only slightly related to his current "looks"-- it is instead, a layering of all the feelings of attraction I have had toward him for all these years.....
From time to time people have had long conversations about just that phenomenon here, but you did a nice job of covering it. Your final paragraph was particularly well-put.
Mr. Ven, sorry, I misspelled: I meant, of course, Austensplaining.
You do realize this is just not a connection everyone makes? I go to the gym and what not for my general health. Sure, that's related to sexuality in a very, very general sort of way, but I've never personally made a big connection between exercising and maintaining/enhancing sexiness.
Ms Cute - I thought I'd made it clear that I was addressing Ms Driasis just as Miss E. Bennet addressed Mr Darcy, but there was certainly possibility for confusion.
I didn't mean to imply that only extenuating circumstances affect libido-- I only meant to list some of the larger things that can affect it. My experience is that libido is constantly changing--for many different or even, no apparent reasons.
The letter writer didn't seem at all confident that weight loss would make her husband more attractive to her-- not did she specify how extreme the gain might have been. Are we talking 10 pounds or 100? It is difficult to tell. She says "beer belly", not "morbidly obese" so I am guessing she means maybe 20-30 lbs. My own weight has fluctuated FAR more in marriage without seeming to affect my husbands view of me. And his has had a 60 pound range with no affect on my view of his attractiveness (although it did prompt some nagging about his long term health).
Even aside from the letter writer's distaste for her spouse's body-- I find the use of sex as a manipulative reward a big turn off (oddly, spontaneous use of sex as a reward seems totally ok to me-- like discovering the hubby has done some nasty house chore neither of us wanted to do might result in an immediate and joyfully delivered blowjob).
As far as the government stipend, I meant it much more personally. One of me is quite enough for the world and then some besides. A new and improved version might wreak total havoc on the poor planet.
Oh I feel like the "that I know of" is pretty much a tautology in that case so I omit it.
As for your second point... sometimes that apple falls quite far from the tree. But in any case I have a lot of love for people who choose not to have kids.
Interesting casting: you as Elizabeth Bennet and mydriasis as Mr. Darcy.
Thanks for your input. I agree that my current relationship could be considered as FWB, although enjoying life together once in a while, and deeply caring for each other seems more than that to me. What "romantic feelings" means I've never been very sure of, like many people who didn't have a normal childhood. Lust, caring I feel, romance no.
@vennominon
Of course the choice of reproducing is yours, and more power to you, but from reading your comments on The Stranger for a bit of time already, I fail to see how you could be that bad of a human being... you seem pretty decent to me.
But if he promised he would actually fuck me if I got down to a size 8 (a 6 in the US) I'd be down the gym all day and avoiding carbs like nobody's business! *sighs*
But it seems that a lot of people are puzzled about this whole objectification issue. So, here goes. I'll try not to be annoying.
Most of us have physical trait related ideas of beauty. That's fine. Say someone likes blondes. That's great, and if s/he can find happiness with one, so much the better. Nothing is wrong with finding someone you think is beautiful, or with being found beautiful, for whatever reason.
Now say someone likes blondes because they've internalized every dumb blonde joke on the planet and being with someone who is intellectually inferior turns them on because they like to be in a position of superiority. THAT CRAP IS NOT OK.
I believe my current romance owes its beginning to my enormous breasts. I'm fine with this because my ladyfriend (also a member of a highly fetishized subset of the population) respects me and is kind and generous and amusing and we enjoy eachother immensely. If I find out that my physical abnormalities had a hand in her attraction for me, this will all still be true and it won't matter. Our fetishizable traits have not impeded our ability to see one another as people.
I've also dated people who needed the ego boost they got from feeling that they had to take care of me. I've also been seen as a "project". For comparison, I've known BBWs who have dated people who got off on the idea that that woman was all theirs because nobody else would want her. Any of these things is disrespectful and dehumanizing. The devotee community is, in my experience, full of similar viewpoints.
In conclusion, it is not impossible to lust after someone with a disability because of that disability and still be an OK human being. Maybe they just think the resulting physical traits are hot, or are drawn to the strength of character necessary to live a productive life despite such differences. It just isn't common for someone who identifies as a devotee to think like that. Most of us with physical disadvantages avoid people who identify as devotees because a common DEFENSE is "but I just want to nurture and care for you."
That is creepy and not at all indicative of an equitable relationship.
Personally, I've always felt the two descriptions to have rather different flavours. Always being called ten suggests a round up from nine, perhaps give or take a couple of hundred. But to make no difference, I'd be inclined, although Mrs E herself doesn't seem all that more thrifty than Mrs Bennet, to think the income within twenty pounds, which, given the Austenian Interest Rate of 5%, would put the fortune at 9,600. At any rate, clearly the Eltons will not at any time soon be acquiring that most status-conferring of objects, the Barouche-Landau.