« For those who need things simply put | Main | Looking for an Acrobat Javascript Genius/PDFKit Genius »

Whaddya mean "I can't look"?

I've been noticing a new and stupid phenomenon lately. It seems that, according to many people, I'm not going to be "allowed" to look at other women once I'm married.

Now, obviously, we aren't talking literally. This would make working rather difficult. Along with driving, walking and helping teach my martial arts class. So by "looking" we mean "looking at other women who you find hot in a 'damn, I'd like to do her' way". This strikes me as ungodly stupid, and thank god Melissa thinks so too. First of all, I like women. I love women. Tall short, blondes, brunettes, redheads, stripes, plaid, black, white, you name it. Love the women. Part of that is looking at them. I love looking at women. Preferable ones in tight, revealing clothing. Or naked. Naked works too, I'm not that picky on the clothing thing. I don't follow them down the street yelling "HEY BABY, WANNA RIDE MY BALONEY PONY?" or other stupid shit like that. But if I'm talking to someone, and a really attractive woman walks by, Ima lookin', and I'm not apologizing. The female form is proof that there is true beauty in this world. Who am I to allow such beauty to go unappreciated?

Yet, for some reason, because I'm marrying Melissa, I'm supposed to give that up? I'm never supposed to find another woman hot or sexy or beautiful, or whatever? Um...no. I love Melissa, and she's well aware of that. She knows that I know who I come home to, and the myriad reasons why. I long ago made up my mind as to the only woman I intend to live with, sleep with, etc. That's called being faithful. But that's not the same as telling me what to think, or what to fantasize about. Dude, I see Catherine Zeta-Jones, the lizardbrain goes into high gear. Mel knows that, in fact, we have a deal. I get CZJ, she gets Johnny Depp. Seems fair to me.

However, she knows about the male background sex loop. "Time to go to lunch, I'd do her, ah crap, forgot to bring it from home, love to bend her over a table, oh well, BK works too, Oh you know she's a dirty girl..." She's well aware of it, and doesn't worry, because she's secure in how I feel about her. Face it, she owns me, and I'm going nowhere. But she's not about to try and tell me what I can have running up in my head. That would eventually make me resent her, and force me to hide it when it happens randomly. Which it does. Making someone hide their thoughts and feelings from their spouse is rarely a good idea. So I don't hide it. I don't club her with it either. But when a woman walks down the street in a nice pair of jeans with a killer rack, she knows I'm looking, and she knows what I'm thinking. The way she looks at it, the more my febrile little mind fantasizes about things, the better it is for her. Works pretty well too.

It's about trust and being secure in the relationship. She knows that looking != touching. She knows I feel the same way. Hell, she's an artist. She has an actual functional need to have naked men with better bodies model for her. What, I'm supposed to tell her that she can use them for models, but not find them attractive? Does this actually work for people? Because it's a pretty insecure and petty thing to do. I trust her, she trusts me. We know what the line is, because we've talked about it, like grownups. We aren't so insecure that every time I look at another woman, she thinks "Oh god, he doesn't love me anymore", and I don't think she's dumping me for a model, no matter how bad her eyes glaze over when she talks about the better - looking ones. Besides, there are worse things to have come home to you than a woman all hot and bothered because she's been around naked or half - naked men for hours. Really. Trust me here. Doesn't suck.

So, sorry to all the people who are insecure about such things, but Ima lookin' and so's she. We're a little too old to try to play petty - assed control and power games with each other.

Technorati Tags: Relationships

Posted by John C. Welch at 17:20 | Permalink

Comments

Word. Trust is indeed what it's about. We make rules when we don't trust other people, and that lack of trust signifies we don't trust ourselves.

Also, this "you can't look" rule, when institutionalized, quickly turns into "you can't look, but you can't help but look, so let's disallow women to go outside unless they're in a cousin It costume. It's better for all of us, really!"

So remember kids: Just say No to cousin It.

Posted by: Arthur Langereis | March 6, 2007 7:02 PM

Cover up thine flesh, thou evile femination! Mine will be vanquished by thine milky thighs!

Posted by: pmbuko | March 6, 2007 7:43 PM

(clam)
MILKY THIGHS
(/clam)

Posted by: John C. Welch | March 6, 2007 10:20 PM

Arthur: agree 100%.

It's been my experience that the more jealous a woman is, the more likely it is that they'll cheat on you; it's like they project their own feelings onto you. And because it goes through their head and they *act* on it; they somehow imagine that you'll do it too, and that somehow justifies it.

I now look upon it as a *major* warning sign.

If a woman gets uptight about you even talking to another mildly attractive woman (as my ex-wife did), you can pretty much guarantee that she'll be the one acting on those urges herself (as my ex-wife did). Like somehow believing you are capable of being unfaithful gives her carte-blanche to be unfaithful herself.

Posted by: Awar | March 7, 2007 3:34 AM

I agree with the basic idea, but could you be any more crude?

I'm sure that most of this remains in your head, but posting it publicly on your blog and naming the thoughts explicitly seems like "clubbing" her with it. I mean it's one thing to think "Oh he notices attractive women" and it's another thing entirely to know that he's thinking "love to bend her over a table."

My wife asks me if I'd "do her" pretty often but she never asks how.

Posted by: Bill Brown | March 7, 2007 7:00 AM

Face it, she owns me, and I'm going nowhere. But she's not about to try and tell me what I can have running up in my head.

The most intelligent thing I have ever heard you say! That is right, she owns you. My only warning is that what is up in your head doesn't become verbal expressed. As we know, you are a verbal strumpet.

Posted by: Jack | March 7, 2007 10:58 AM

For Bill and Jack:

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...

I love John. I love John for a million and one reasons, including the way he leaves his coffee cups everywhere, the way his hair sticks up in the morning, and yes, even for his verbal expressions of lust after other women.

WHY would you think that would bother me? I know he loves me. I also know he's human, and like most human males he is going to think about sex at least as often as human females do, if not more. I'd be horribly worried about him if he claimed not to. I've dated men who claimed not to (they were lying of course).

One of the things I love most about John is his honesty with me. Including his honesty about what he's thinking (or not thinking, as the case may be). It's one of the reasons I trust him so very much: he's never been anything other than open and up front with me about things.

Besides, all those things his lizard brain is fantasizing about doing, he's going to come home and do to ME. And I like knowing what his fantasies are.

I read a lot of novels and stories that involve explicit sex scenes. I paint gorgeous men who wander around in... well, whatever I feel like they ought to be (or not be) wearing. I have my store of fantasies, too. I see a good looking guy on the street and my lizard brain is humming along in the back of my head, mentally stripping his clothes off and wondering how I could... er... pose him. I've been known to go completely empty headed at the sight of a really sculpted ass on a man, or the muscles rippling across a pair of broad shoulders.

But I'd never act on those things... not with them. Because I have a gorgeous hunk of man myself, who I trust, who I love, and who is more than willing to act out my fantasies with me.

Why would I deny him the same?

Love and trust between people shouldn't be censored. You shouldn't have to keep parts of yourself locked away. Secrets, even harmless ones, have a tendency to multiply and grow like mildew in dark corners, until they're infecting everything: your life, your health, your relationship.

I don't want John to ever feel he has to hide something from me.

Not even that.

Posted by: Melissa | March 7, 2007 11:31 PM

I agree with the basic idea, but could you be any more crude?

Easily, would you like to see?

Oddly enough, she's said that she's no problem with it. Hmm...who to believe, you or her...hmm..yeah, that's hard. Not. Funny how people love to tell you how to run your relationships yet would get rather peeved at the return.

Posted by: John C. Welch | March 8, 2007 12:54 PM

I'm not sure what's sadder, your obviously poor opinion of her maturity and worldview, or that you see relationships as a game of deceit.

Posted by: John C. Welch | March 8, 2007 12:56 PM

WHY would you think that would bother me?

I don't know, maybe because he explicitly said that he didn't "club [you] with it." He must think that there's some point at which he'd stop going on about the things he'd do to some other woman.

That was my larger point: there's a difference between knowing that your husband still looks at other women and that he's thinking about this particular woman and all the different positions he'd use. One is abstract (though real) and the other is concrete. He'll think what he thinks but that doesn't mean it's respectful to you to carry on about it--a fact which he himself noted in the entry. To be upset with carrying on does not mean you're insecure, far from it. It's just not courteous.

Oh and all that lizard-brain bullshit is just a dodge. Men and women probably think about sex just as frequently and are just as capable of controlling their urges.

Let's see. She said that she didn't have a problem with it *after* I asked the question. Was I supposed to intuit her reaction somehow?

I wouldn't tell you how to live or how to conduct your relationship. That doesn't mean that I don't have an opinion and I guess I was under the impression that you would want to hear it since you enabled comments for this entry. If you don't want people expressing their opinions about your opinions or how you live your life, then don't share how you live your life or don't open comments when you do. You can't have it both ways.

Posted by: Bill Brown | March 8, 2007 2:38 PM

There is one thing that will always be true of you John: You know how to twist people's words. I made no comment about Melissa, her maturity, or world-view. Moreover, I do not believe nor did I imply a relationship is a game of deceit. Actually, you did. In fact, you somehow are prepared to defend a belief that the history of mankind does not support. Nevertheless, give it a try, I know you are better than the rest. Clearly, you haven't made this mistake in the past and there is little reason to believe you would do so in the future. What I did say though for clarification, was that you don't have to express those sexual thoughts in their "full verbal totality." It is about discernment, not deciet. That's all. But by all means, go ahead. I will wait and see what the outcome is.

Posted by: Jack | March 8, 2007 2:45 PM

From the "You must be new here" department:
That doesn't mean that I don't have an opinion and I guess I was under the impression that you would want to hear it since you enabled comments for this entry.

There's opinion and projection of ourselves on people we don't know. You did the latter in this case, it was confirmed incorrect by the person you projected yourself unto and now you come back with a "nyeh, I can make a comment whenever I want" which is completely true and also completely irrelevant in this context.

You made an assumption that was wrong and instead of owning up to it you try to cover it up with a red herring .. and by calling John out for being crude and discourteous... that was pretty funny, I'll give you that.

Posted by: Arthur Langereis | March 8, 2007 3:23 PM

I said that it "seems like 'clubbing' her with it." How is that projecting myself on to someone else? I was saying my opinion of what he was doing. I never said (as you and John seem to think I said), "Melissa is not going to be happy with this." I would never presume such a thing. He said he wouldn't club her with it; I said it seemed like he was. To me, it's clubbing. To him, it's not. To her, it's not. Duly noted. If they don't think it's clubbing, then it's not for them.

Posted by: Bill Brown | March 8, 2007 4:11 PM

You sure you don't write for Man Coulter?

Posted by: John C. Welch | March 8, 2007 4:19 PM

I wouldn't tell you how to live or how to conduct your relationship.

Your words Bill:

I agree with the basic idea, but could you be any more crude?

I can't divine your intent, but the meaning of your words is pretty clear: "you shouldn't talk about it like to her. You should only think it, and tell her only part of it."

If that's not what you meant, then state it differently. But the words you wrote, that's what came through, and that is, if you ponder it a bit, telling me how I should talk to Mel, hence, telling me how to run my relationship.

That doesn't mean that I don't have an opinion and I guess I was under the impression that you would want to hear it since you enabled comments for this entry. If you don't want people expressing their opinions about your opinions or how you live your life, then don't share how you live your life or don't open comments when you do. You can't have it both ways.

WHY oh WHY do I get the feeling that if I'd said "MY GOD BILL! You're SO RIGHT! I've been such a FOOL! Thank GOD for sending you here to open my eyes!", (perhaps not as sarcastically), you'd have had no problems with that response.

You want to leave comments, and then get whiny if people don't agree with them and see large holes in the logic behind them? But you tell me *I* can't have it both ways? Um...look in a mirror dude.

Posted by: John C. Welch | March 8, 2007 4:26 PM

I can't divine your intent, but the meaning of your words is pretty clear: "you shouldn't talk about it like to her. You should only think it, and tell her only part of it."

That's your take on what I said. I've reread what I said several times and I think you're missing the key part: "... seems like ..." To whom would it seem like it's clubbing? You? Melissa? Germans living in America? No, it seems like it to me.

If you had said "Good point" or even "it wasn't 'clubbing' because I only said what I said and didn't go on and on about it," then I would have been fine with that. I would never expect anyone to agree with me, let alone you. You're as disagreeable as they come and, here I'm presuming, Melissa probably digs that about you. Bully for you both. I was never looking for affirmation.

So let me state it as clearly and crudely as I can: I don't give a fucking shit what you or your wife talk or don't talk about. I don't even fucking care whether you've got an open relationship where you have sex with those other women.

I made a big mistake in commenting. In doing so, I gave the appearance that I give a shit about you or your life. I don't. Normally I read your stuff and say, "Why bother." This time, for some inexplicable reason, I decided to make a note of what I regarded as an inconsistency.

I can see somewhat why you might think that I'm trying to tell you how to run your life: if I cared enough to comment, then I must be offering up advice on how you should behave. I apologize for leaving a comment: I actually don't care.

Posted by: Bill Brown | March 8, 2007 5:03 PM

Bill:
You have fallen into John's silly "reinterpret your words for his own amusment" trap. I have been a victim of its madness as well. He clearly never reads or pays attention to what people actually say. He simply picks a word or phrase and bastardizes it to his own liking. Sometimes its fun--sometimes I wish I could reach through the cable... He also has a habit of making it personal for some reason. Most importantly, he has the special gift of knowing people's "real" motives which he is consistently wrong about. It is called paranoia.

John thanks for your witty retort. Man Coulter--that's all you have?

Posted by: Jack | March 9, 2007 10:03 AM

Do you always get this upset over things you don't give a "fucking shit" over? It would seem to me that apathy not anger would be the reaction were that the case. You may want to make sure you really don't care how others take your words, your reaction seems to indicate that you in fact do care.

Okay Stimpy. Got it. You don't care. Three vehement paragraphs loudly proclaiming "I DON'T CARE. SEE? THIS IS ME NOT CARING. I DON'T CARE AT ALL." People in Addis Abbaba hear you not caring. They aren't commenting because they don't care either.

Yep. You don't care. We can tell. You say it all the time. You don't care. You know, for a rather short phrase, you spent a lot of time justifying it. Which is odd, because if you didn't care, then you'd not need to explain your not caring.

You care an awful lot about making sure I know you don't care.

Posted by: John C. Welch | March 9, 2007 1:49 PM

You have fallen into John's silly "reinterpret your words for his own amusment" trap. I have been a victim of its madness as well. He clearly never reads or pays attention to what people actually say. He simply picks a word or phrase and bastardizes it to his own liking. Sometimes its fun--sometimes I wish I could reach through the cable... He also has a habit of making it personal for some reason. Most importantly, he has the special gift of knowing people's "real" motives which he is consistently wrong about. It is called paranoia.

Ah yes, the classic Coulter-wannabe tactic. "I didn't specifically say what you said I did, so therefore I can always claim a completely different meaning, therefore allowing me to imagine the moral high ground I stand upon."

Jack, a tip...that tactic only works on the uninitiated. Sorry, I learned more games than you'll ever know by the time I graduated high school, and the one you're playing, while a classic, and somewhat effective, as the right-wing blogger evisceration corps has demonstrated, is simply not effective against someone who knows how it works. But you keep trying. Maybe one day, Man will let you have a blog of your own.

John thanks for your witty retort. Man Coulter--that's all you have?

It's all you're worth.

Posted by: John C. Welch | March 9, 2007 1:53 PM

"I didn't specifically say what you said I did, so therefore I can always claim a completely different meaning, therefore allowing me to imagine the moral high ground I stand upon."

Right, see:

http://www.bynkii.com/archives/2007/03/for_those_who_need_things_simp.html

You are amazing.

Posted by: Jack | March 12, 2007 2:06 PM

Nice try Jack, but I didn't change what I said, I clarified it. You never do that, you just keep claiming "Oh, it was a joke/I didn't say that". In fact, it was response to some points from people (who aren't you), that the original post, while reasonably clear, had enough side trips that misunderstanding was all too possible. So, I posted a followup that reiterated the same message, sans side trips and distractions. In other words, increasing clarity of the same message, not trying to say I said something completely different in a lame attempt at CYA.

You on the other hand, constantly pull the "I was only joking, can't you take a JOKE" or "that's not precisely what my words said, even if it was, it's not what I really meant", and you keep backpedaling and retroactively changing your meaning until your point is so broad that it can mean anything you wish it to. Lame.

You try to copy Coulter's tactics, but in the end, you're just not smart enough, nor a good enough writer. And they called *Kerry* a flip-flop artist.

Posted by: John C. Welch | March 13, 2007 10:15 AM

Whaddya mean "I can't look"?

Comments

Post a comment