the grand cotillion: a prelude in prose
I received two very different emails last night, on the same topic.
The first was from an old friend, wondering if my references to "leggy Lit majors" was a heralding of a new muse. The other was from a friend of more recent vintage, but no less respected, taking me to the shed as she felt that my references to such were destroying my ability to cultivate a romantic relationship on the web.
To the first: No.
To the second, I understand your point and respect it, but anyone who is going to end up with me has to understand my chaotic sense of humour and if they are not able to laugh along, it would probably be a short-lived romance, anyway, and I am not looking for those situations. Besides, having seen the massive levels of dishonestly ladled by persons on the web, I am not quite ready to commit to finding a lover/muse/goddess in virtual space (and, no neophyte I, I have been involved with many women what I first encountered on the far side of a microprocessor...)
Love is chemical to me. Like Ellen Barkin in "Sea of Love"...I believe in the ::snap::. You either have it or you don't. I have had women fall in love with me as a writer, but in the real world find me someone unsuited to daily wear. And I have had those who adored the man, hated the poet. The truth is, it would be difficult for anyone unable or unwilling to embrace both spheres to be with me.
I am mercurial, obsessive, hypersexual, aggressive and intellectually curious. I am also passionate, affectionate, loyal, dependable and resourceful with a hyperkinetic sense of humour. I believe in love. I just believe I have either mangled it several times, or have had a run of bad luck selecting (or allowing myself to be selected as) partners for the grand cotillion (which sounds like a great idea for a poem...so be it).
I don't drink, I don't do recreational drugs and have come to realize that a habit I had in the past of being intellectually dishonest was a side effect of having to keep too many secrets and cover too many asses. Don't ask me to lie for you, over and over again, then tell me you think I am a liar. That's hypocrisy. Another vice I loathe. I make my lovers immortal icons in a grand chess game of the heart. And, yes, I would like to find my queen.
And no, she does not have to be a leggy Lit major. But she does need to be able to make me go "Wow!" on as many levels as possible and deal with a man with feet firmly planted in many spheres and whom is planning to take the facets of his life, in the near term, and reassemble many things he had left dormant.
I have actually met a few who would qualify for this. Most are already taken. Some are in places and nooks and crannies of my life where further exploration would be a minefield and without indication of reciprocal attentions, I will not go. I do not go where I am uninvited (I learned that from Count Dracula and even he came to a bad end). I will not bring into my life someone so frail as to be dusted by the fires and shattered by the cold where I go in my emotions and my writings.
And, if that means I sleep alone until the end of my life, I can live with that.
1 comments:
William, is it possible that sexy men really end up sleeping aone? ;-) Sexy women sleep alone all the time pining after men they can't have, but do men really do this? I think men are more likely to adopt an attitude that finding a new woman's easy. They're like buses, one every ten minutes. Oh, I've met older women who say the same about men, but how often do you see an older woman with a young stud on her arm?
I think it's easier for a man to find a woman willing to adapt to his personality than it is for a woman to find a man to adapt to hers. (Stedman and Oprah an exception perhaps, but even Oprah said they wouldn't be together still if they had married because Stedman's a "traditional" male and she's a nontraditional female. That implies to me that she feels she wouldn't be able to adapt to his desires for a traditional wife and he wouldn't stay in a legal marraige if she failed to adapt.)
I think the majority of women are still raised to be more accomodating and to please the male. Consequently, a woman's more likely to have her needs unmet in a realtionship.
Did you know that the average male also recovers more easily from a bad relationship or from being jilted? I read this news once in a magazine article cautioning people about getting romanticly involved on the job. The article cautioned women especially against doing so because apparently men can turn the love faucet off no sweat while a woman can't. Therefore, the woman is more likely to end up miserable at the office, still in love afterward, than the man is.
Some expert was quoted as saying that men find it much easier to re-prioritize their goals and drop a female partner if that male feels the relationship jeopardizes his job. The expert went on to say that women are different in that women find it much more difficult to shut off the emotional connection even when the connection is detrimental. It tells me that women should never kick themselves over whether a man loves them enough to stay with her no matter what. It's possible the men who do so are an anomaly.
Given this understanding of males, I would be inclined to say why would smart women bother with a relationship period, at the office or away from it, knowing that men find women so expendable, see them as exchangeable? It implies that it's easy for men to put themselves and their needs ahead of a relationship even when the relationship appears to be true love. Certainly the article left me in a cynical frame of mind regarding the hope of finding genuine love ever. Perhaps genuine romantic, long-lasting love is a myth.
As for finding love on the Net, some people seem to do it. I suspect my trust issues prevent me from being successful down that route. Like you, I tend to suspect the Net Romeo is a liar.
Post a Comment