Sounds nice in theory, and maybe it will work for a while for someone who is single, but I don’t see this a reality for the majority of society, especially those who are married. The problem as I see is in your term “as long as you don't limit your dependency to a particular person.” If you stick to this rule, then you will never achieve a close, intimate relationship. You will only have friend or acquaintances, even though they may be sex friends. But in so doing, haven’t you just thrown up another variant of a defensive wall?
Well, I'm a bit confused about the whole issue at the moment. For instance, I was thinking today that I'm going to go back to thinking of NG as being my lover rather than my boyfriend because the word "lover" makes me feel less fused than the word "boyfriend". It's like I'm going to ruin the hot sex just by thinking the word. If he's my lover, I laugh when he throws the half-folded laundry off the bed. If he's my boyfriend, I start thinking about helping him fold the laundry afterwards. A lover exists purely for my pleasure (including the pleasure I get from giving him pleasure). A boyfriend might require some effort/emotional investment and I am still quite weary. However, my point would be that I can have just as close and intimate of a relationship with a lover as I can have with a boyfriend or a husband. I think there is vast evidence on this BB that the level of commitment to a relationship has little to do with the level of intimacy. As Schnarch makes clear, it is actually frequently much easier to reveal your deepest fantasies and dreams to the stranger in the elevator you will never see again then to the person you know you'll have to face across the dinner table each evening.
Last edited by MJontheMend; 08/11/0701:59 AM.
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
