I have recently been chewing over the issue of part-time lovers. Now it seems eminently sensible to me that in lieu of a full-time lover, I could substitute with enough part-timers to make a full-time equivalent. I have no moral objection in my particular case - I have made no commitment to anyone. It's rational, sensible, logical even, and I am a rational, sensible and logical hair-monster. But unfortuately, I'm just not wired that way. I have NEVER been able to regularly sleep with two men concurrently. I have no idea why, I just can't, and never mind the physical frustration, I'm finding that fact intellectually frustrating! I have managed a one-night stand in the same week as the start of an ongoing relationship, but I just can't ride two horses, so to speak.
However, through some nonsense at work, I dug out my Myers-Briggs personality type. Hmmm. It's like someone has been following me around with a tape-recorder and noting things I've said out loud to include in the profile. It even predicted what CDs I would have in the car. How does my attitude to unexpected invitations so correctly define me as a Vaughan Williams devotee? I'm an individual, damn it, and I took the Shostokovitch out of the car last week, so Ha, you were wrong there.
It said that my type had a similar attitude to music as they did to sex. I have said to D that music and sex are the only times I completely lose myself in a moment. It also said that my type "may analyse his/her own thought processes as if his mind and body were separate from their conscious self". Also that "They seek patterns and logical explanations for anything that interests them". So that will be why, as K was forcing me down onto the concrete path, careless of the cuts and bruises I sustained in his sudden rage, I was thinking, "Aha, this is the second time with me, the third time I know about, and you can triangulate from 3 occurances. Interestingly, the pattern appears to be doorways - each time he's kicked off, it has involved pushing someone out of or through a doorway. What's that about?" Someone more in touch with their feelings may have just thought, "Fuck this for a game of soldiers, I'm off." Funny lot, us INTPs.
But it does say that we are very loyal and faithful and entirely straightforward in relationships - never bother with game playing. See - we're not that bad. What's even better, I've managed to be one of the few INTPs that's not a trekkie - I'm almost human! Don't know that any of this is going to help me solve my shag dilemma though.
Thursday 15 May 2008
I'm one of them
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hi, I saw your comment over in Lazy Philosopher's survey and thought drop by to say hello, little realizing that your latest post (pre-dating his) was on essentially the same subject.
First of all, the whole Ralph Vaughan Williams connection intrigues me, because I love his stuff, and yet do not recall it ever appearing in any Myers-Briggs evaluation. Obviously they do things differently in England. But anyway, who doesn't love "The Lark Ascending"? And through your well-developed power of suggestion I've just put on his Symphony No. 5, which I really don't remember well -- I tend to like his songs and romances.
But this isn't what I intended to write about at all. What I meant to do was offer a supporting voice for "serial monogamy". In my case the peculiar thing was that as soon as I had an extra-marital girlfriend I found the idea of sex with my wife to be actually repellant. I was not drawn to it, and on those few occasions where it was essential I actually felt that I was being unfaithful to my partner in infidelity. In other words, one partner at a time please.
I think this must go hand in hand with the need to bond emotionally our partners. But I haven't read enough of your blog claim whether or not that fits you as well.
Looking forward to reading your blog -- I do like the way you write.
I wanted to add my word of support to Apollo's: I'm not for one moment going to say anything against those who can run multiple partners at the same time (and I even did it very briefly myself once upon a time) but, generally, I'm a serial monogamist too.
We are who we are - and there's nothing wrong with that!
Well its good to know I'm not alone. As I say, it doesn't seem necessarily logical, but it does feel personally right.
Post a Comment