Day 29
Another variey show:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So tonight I will take a break from the usual stuffy and pseudo-intellectual offerings, and get down to something that every can relate to: sexual fantasy.
Recently I was having a conversation with someone (whose name can't be mentioned, because my girlfriend Vanessa doesn't want the name of this someone to be mentioned) about what the proper 'etiquette' is when it comes to pleasuring oneself on ones own time, but while in a relationship. In all fairness, I brought up the topic, talked about it, and concluded it, without really much input from the aforementioned nameless person.
Here's my thought: when people 'service' themselves, they typically fantasize about other people while doing so; it is only natural. My question was regarding whether there are any 'off limits' fantasies when you're in a relationship.
For example (fake names here), Say Bob has a girlfriend Joanne, and Joanne has a friend Jim. Is Bob justified in being annoyed if Joanne fantasizes about Jim? Or likewise, is Joanne justified in being annoyed at Bob's fantasies about his friend Katie?
My solution is that we all should just fantasize about unattainable celebrities. That way no feelings are hurt. Personally, I'm down for Hillary Swank, and Rachael Ray (no comments please!).
Thoughts, anybody?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a slightly different note, I want to say that it is interesting the number of comments I get in person regarding this site, but how few comments people actually type out and publish here. I'd say I get comments in person, on msn, or on facebook at least once every day, oddly enough. Nobody seems to want to contribute their thoughts publicly for some reason!
However, there are exceptions. For example, on the rare occasions that I write about silly stuff, I usually get more comments. A long time back on my old site, I wrote an entry chronicalling urinal etiquette rules for when one is in a 6 urinal situation at a public bathroom. Pretty much every friend I know had something to say on the matter, even girls!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I wrote "World's last non-porn website" I had hoped the meaning would be deeper than the simple denial of explicit sexual content. By "non-porn" I had intended the site to be of the sort that doesn't really offer instant entertainment in general. You should not be 'satisfied' by my content, for it is usually open-ended. Like any piece of good literature, you will get more out of reading these words the more effort you put into them (this is my hope, at least); my ideas are almost never complete, and this is intentional. As I finish up each entry, I have the desire that you, the reader, will add some of your own thoughts to it, whether privately or publicly.
Consider my words and ideas not as statements of fact (or even as opinion, necessarily), but as offerings to you, much the way I might offer you a bite of my sandwich if we were sitting next to each other at lunch. I don't know if you'll like it, but I do hope you'll accept, give it a try, and see how it tastes to you.
The real pleasure occurs not in the content, but in the act of sharing. This is what motivates me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A short thought on the debate over whether same sex marriages ought to be legal in Canada:
It seems that people conflate two distinct kinds of marriage; that which is based on the authority of religious institution, and that which is based on the authority of our government institution. Separation of church and state demands that legislation not infringe on the decisions of churches with respect to who they can and can't marry, but the Charter also implies very strongly that same-sex couple have the same right to marry as do couples of opposite sexes.
So, what follows from this? It is quite simple: same-sex couples should have the legal (legislated) right to marry, while churches ought to retain their rights not to perform the ceremonies if they choose not to. Under this kind of regime, any given church may well deem same-sex marriages as illegitimate, which is fine, but said married couples will still have all the same rights afforded to them by law as all married couples do. Truth is, marriage changes a lot of things about a relationship with respect to legal statuses, custody of children (including adopted), finances, and sofofth; none of these things change just because one of the partners is the same sex as the other.
For the record, I find it completely backward and despicible that churches are still clinging onto the agenda that homosexuality is sinful,and I find that the claim deserves neither creedence nor an efforted refutation, but such is the nature of democracy. And in the end, I am betting that churches that endorse such backward notions and policies will eventually die out and be replaced by more progressive religious movements. At least, in Canada, hopefully, this will happen!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So tonight I will take a break from the usual stuffy and pseudo-intellectual offerings, and get down to something that every can relate to: sexual fantasy.
Recently I was having a conversation with someone (whose name can't be mentioned, because my girlfriend Vanessa doesn't want the name of this someone to be mentioned) about what the proper 'etiquette' is when it comes to pleasuring oneself on ones own time, but while in a relationship. In all fairness, I brought up the topic, talked about it, and concluded it, without really much input from the aforementioned nameless person.
Here's my thought: when people 'service' themselves, they typically fantasize about other people while doing so; it is only natural. My question was regarding whether there are any 'off limits' fantasies when you're in a relationship.
For example (fake names here), Say Bob has a girlfriend Joanne, and Joanne has a friend Jim. Is Bob justified in being annoyed if Joanne fantasizes about Jim? Or likewise, is Joanne justified in being annoyed at Bob's fantasies about his friend Katie?
My solution is that we all should just fantasize about unattainable celebrities. That way no feelings are hurt. Personally, I'm down for Hillary Swank, and Rachael Ray (no comments please!).
Thoughts, anybody?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a slightly different note, I want to say that it is interesting the number of comments I get in person regarding this site, but how few comments people actually type out and publish here. I'd say I get comments in person, on msn, or on facebook at least once every day, oddly enough. Nobody seems to want to contribute their thoughts publicly for some reason!
However, there are exceptions. For example, on the rare occasions that I write about silly stuff, I usually get more comments. A long time back on my old site, I wrote an entry chronicalling urinal etiquette rules for when one is in a 6 urinal situation at a public bathroom. Pretty much every friend I know had something to say on the matter, even girls!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I wrote "World's last non-porn website" I had hoped the meaning would be deeper than the simple denial of explicit sexual content. By "non-porn" I had intended the site to be of the sort that doesn't really offer instant entertainment in general. You should not be 'satisfied' by my content, for it is usually open-ended. Like any piece of good literature, you will get more out of reading these words the more effort you put into them (this is my hope, at least); my ideas are almost never complete, and this is intentional. As I finish up each entry, I have the desire that you, the reader, will add some of your own thoughts to it, whether privately or publicly.
Consider my words and ideas not as statements of fact (or even as opinion, necessarily), but as offerings to you, much the way I might offer you a bite of my sandwich if we were sitting next to each other at lunch. I don't know if you'll like it, but I do hope you'll accept, give it a try, and see how it tastes to you.
The real pleasure occurs not in the content, but in the act of sharing. This is what motivates me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A short thought on the debate over whether same sex marriages ought to be legal in Canada:
It seems that people conflate two distinct kinds of marriage; that which is based on the authority of religious institution, and that which is based on the authority of our government institution. Separation of church and state demands that legislation not infringe on the decisions of churches with respect to who they can and can't marry, but the Charter also implies very strongly that same-sex couple have the same right to marry as do couples of opposite sexes.
So, what follows from this? It is quite simple: same-sex couples should have the legal (legislated) right to marry, while churches ought to retain their rights not to perform the ceremonies if they choose not to. Under this kind of regime, any given church may well deem same-sex marriages as illegitimate, which is fine, but said married couples will still have all the same rights afforded to them by law as all married couples do. Truth is, marriage changes a lot of things about a relationship with respect to legal statuses, custody of children (including adopted), finances, and sofofth; none of these things change just because one of the partners is the same sex as the other.
For the record, I find it completely backward and despicible that churches are still clinging onto the agenda that homosexuality is sinful,and I find that the claim deserves neither creedence nor an efforted refutation, but such is the nature of democracy. And in the end, I am betting that churches that endorse such backward notions and policies will eventually die out and be replaced by more progressive religious movements. At least, in Canada, hopefully, this will happen!
Comments
Let us walk through open doorways... inspire and intrigue others through the act of sharing. Learn from it, or disregard it. Spread it... share with those around you whatever you have to give.
Both my friends were talking about this with me earlier (wow, I have 2 friends), who are /female/ and in relationships, anyway:
Girl A feels that fantasies are free to be about whatever and whoever the fantasizer weants it to be, and it's none of anyone's business to pry or to impose restrictions. She doesn't want to know who or /what/ her boyfriend thinks of when he's chanking his chain, nor would she want to share the tile scheme she's picked out for their future kitchen that she fantasizes about for when they'll eventually marry and spawn offspring. Fantasy is up to the fantasizer, and nothing's off limits in the realm of our imagination, according to her.
Contrast, Girl B, who can't even handle her boyfriend looking at porn, or other women, and refuses to allow her boyfriend to hang out with female friends, what-have-you, strongly disagrees. The mind is just another battlefield for her to win attention. Girl B is the 'jealous' type, and her jealousy doesn't restrict her to feeling jealous over /imaginary/ situations or even /imaginary/ girls. She feels that when you're in a relationship having an abundance of normal, healthy sex, one should not require chanking one's chain, or fantasizing about anything other than the person they are with. Whenever her boyfriend tells her that this is just impossible, her feelings are hurt, and her self-esteem suffers. She in turn makes up stupid fantasies about other men that she doesn't actually have in order to retaliate, but I find this makes the situation usually worse.
I use to be more of a jealous-type Girl B, (due to dating a porn-a-holic at a freakishly early age) but I am finding in time to be more happy with just sticking with the first situation, and letting one's fantasies be one's own and not letting it bother me too much. If the guy I am dating thinks of Pamela Anderson or Hilary Swank when he's pleasuring himself in his own time, that's up to him, and it doesn't mean in any shape or form that he likes me less. Sometimes, you just need variety! If anything, I'd inquire as to what these fantasies were, and see if I could either make some of them happen in reality, or squeeze myself into a thought or two, assuming I wasn't already. (:
I think Vicky that both your friends come from the right places. Frankly, I wouldn't want my girlfriends fantasizing about my close friends, but at the same time I couldn't care less if they liked a bit of porn, or whatever else. This is why I believe unattainable celebrity fantasies are a good compromise!
Girl A might just be a little too lax (I'm guessing Sara). Girl B (Jacqui?) needs to relax a little. Guys will stare at butts/boobs no matter how much they love you, and no matter how faithful they are, there's no getting around it. Usually though, it is symptomatic. If they're having that argument, the real reason is probably that he doesn't give enough attention, or at least she feels she's not getting enough.
I wanted to just mention something, but I didn't want to mention it on your site. If you move in with your two girlfriends, don't forget, you're also moving in with whatever idiot boyfriends they decide to bring over five nights a week, and all their bad habits. You might suddenly miss the peace and quiet of having one loner roommate on Oak Bay Avenue, who always pays rent on time. I do hope you're thinking with great care on the matter, and not just getting caught up in the excitement of the idea.
But then again, I'm moving out in a few months, maybe I should come live with Em. ha!