"normal" was a few blocks back...

.
. . Being Official .
.

new
archives
profile
email
notes
100 things
diaryland

in which simplicity would be asking too much
2004-11-17 @ 10:32 a.m.


Okay, so as far as whatever that exactly means, I suppose CG and I are not "official" or anything. Being as she's apparently in a place where the very thought of committment makes her hyperventilate, she's been counseled to simply think of me as a friend whenever she finds herself freaking out -- which is apparently often, as I hear a reminder of that pretty goddamned repeatedly.

She did say, at some point, "[strange], you'd get married (to her) right now if you could." Which isn't true (and I told her so) but if she's thinking such things I can see how she's a little gunshy.

So okay, we're not official -- does that mean, then, that I'm perfectly sanctioned to respond to flirtations from other women in pretty much any way I want? I mean, because -- y'know, there's this one classmate ... basically, all I've done is study with this girl, but ... well, while I can't imagine much of any kind of relationship there, there is a mutual attraction.

And then, there's work. This past weekend, I had a couple of ladies visiting from Ireland who would have had me back to their hotel -- except, you know, somehow I was thinking that seemed kinda shady. And Halloween weekend, I'd actually had an apparently pretty damned wealthy older lady who insisted I take her number. She was attractive, but yet again -- beyond thesex, I don't know what kind of interest we might have had in each other.

And of course, there is the Beer Tub Girl at work, who CG hates. Am I obligated to stay away from her -- you know, based on the potential of "officalness" or whatever?

See now, the problem is this: If I'm with you, then yeah -- I don't want anybody else. But y'know, if we can't really say yet if I'm "with" you or not -- for exactly what reason would it be, then, that I pass up these other chances that are not likely to be repeated?

I will grant, I have pretty much said in the past that sexual fidelity may be assumed for me -- basically, I'm not really interested in having multiple lovers in the same time period. So I suppose it's fair if CG trusts me to be monogamous because we're involved, even if we're not "officially" involved.

But see, that's just my point -- what is this "official" crap? Seriously, when this amourous and attractive young lady seems quite eager to go home and get naked with me, right this moment: Okay, am I in a goddamned relationship, or am I not? Regardless of the consequences, am I morally in the clear to act on my instincts, rather than my thoughts on my long term life plans, right at this particular moment?

The older lady I mentioned above? I'm not even going to get into details, but suffice to say she was a nice embodiment of a lifelong fantasy, just kinda dropped out of the blue...

Yep, I've finally realized what the heart of the whole irritating issue is for me -- though it's probably been pretty obvious to you all already. Basically, my own simple boundary for whether or not a relationship is offically a "relationship" is whether or not it's exclusive -- though I am aware of and have known people who ascribe to "open" relationship models, or who simply cheat, for myself the line is just right there -- single people can boff whoever they want. If you're "involved", you can only boff the one you're involved with.

Now, for all her cries of non-officialness and of considering me a friend, who wants to side with me in theorizing that she'd be perfectly fine with me taking that to mean that it's still only my business who (else) I happen to sleep with?

Yet, in very vague and noncommital ways, we've been discussing ways we might end up moving in together, getting married, and having kids, though not necessarily in that order. Vague and noncommital, I said.

Thoughts?

latest:
Passing Strange, Indeed
- 2008-12-16@12:44 p.m.
Kim
- 2008-05-28@10:47 p.m.
What's New
- 2008-05-20@11:16 p.m.
Hey, Kim
- 2008-01-18@9:18 a.m.
Christmas Was Weird
- 2008-01-03@8:11 p.m.

<< previous | next >>

...passing strange .