New Here?

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Freely given.

It's a little scary at first, but awesome when I think about it, that Rowdy not only can but does get sex and love elsewhere.

Because he still wants to get it with me.

I don't want to be needed. I want to be wanted.

9 comments:

  1. YES. I can't understand why anyone would want it any other way! "Need" tends to be an ugly thing within the context of a relationship that isn't familial.

    That's (part of) why I don't understand "complementary" gender roles. It's one thing to cook for/fuck your spouse because you actually want to; it's quite another to do it because your spouse happens to be your livelihood.

    --CoronerCountess

    ReplyDelete
  2. I was just thinking about this the other day- wanting someone to want you is fairly standard in human beings, but needing someone to need you is pretty fucked up.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Are you familiar with Amanda Palmer's cover of "I Want You, But I Don't Need You"? Relevant to your interests. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df37unclIKs

    ReplyDelete
  4. I stopped to think about this for a moment, because need v. want is an interesting thought. Part of it is, people who had fucked up familial relationships (like me) can end up with abandonment, trust, self-esteem, etc. issues that blur the lines.

    I think that, in my primary relationship, I need that person to want me. And while that isn't optimal, I think it's better for the other person than for me to want him to need me. And as mental places are solidified and self-esteem stops existing as a function of someone elses' opinion of me, the need fades. And that is good.

    ReplyDelete
  5. That is kind of amazing. I do wish that the state in my monogamous relationship is the same deep down. (Freely given, freely chosen, just again and again.)

    No - I do believe that it is the same. But it might not be in twenty years.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Very well said, and I agree with the want vs. need. I would much rather that my partner freely chose me out of all other available options, than to have someone who is dependent on me or can't function without me. That would be a burden, not a security. Security is trust, compassion, understanding, and true regard for the other. And pasthurt and other are right...it works for any relationship, whether monogamous or poly, as well as friendship. :) Thanks for the great thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I, also, wrote a post addressing this topic (but from more of a monogamous standpoint): http://perversecowgirl.wordpress.com/2010/11/07/attitude-shifts/

    (I don't know how to do the fancy linky-linky thing like Mousie).

    Oh, also, I was once very briefly in a relationship with a poly boy. It crashed and burned in the most horrible way possible, but before that happened, I learned lots of fascinating things about myself and about relationships. The main one was: when he gave me his blessing to fuck someone else, it made me love him even more. Like, wanted me to do anything (anything!) that made me happy, even if it included naked times with other guys.

    Now, as it turns out, I never ended up actually seeing anyone else. But if I had, rather than being tempted away from my bf by the fresh meat (as conventional wisdom would suggest), I think I would've felt so overwhelmed by my bf's generosity that I would've come back from other trysts even more in love with him than before.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Exactly how I feel. I was trying to explain to a friend how being with a guy who also sees other girls makes me feel more loved, not less. Probably because my big insecurity with relationships is that the guy is just settling for me. With a poly guy, I can see clearly that that's not true!

    ReplyDelete