Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Don't do it, Camilla
back in grad school my friend Dr. A-- and i sat in a bar and mused aloud what it would be like if the two of us were married. since he was gay and i was not (if still a virgin) we knew there were some marital borders that wouldn't be crossed. in our conversations, the word separate was used a lot: separate bedrooms, separate entrances, separate groups of friends, separate social schedules - but all with the knowledge that you were with someone who totally understood what it was you wanted.
basically, a relationship with someone who wouldn't interfere too much.
my parents lived for a while in separate rooms; there was a whole year i remember my mom camping out on the living room couch. a friend's parents still have separate beds, like mary and dick in the dick van dyke show. all the men my dad counsels complain their wives don't touch them anymore. (which probably has more to do with something they did wrong than any social trend, i think.)
Dr. A is now 'married' to a great guy, has a thriving real estate side-business while a tenure-track prof at Private University, is raising a son and lives in a magnificent house overlooking Hollywood.
my friend J--, while notorious for being a fickle circuit boy back in the day (albeit a highly educated one), has finally found happiness with his T--; they share a condo in uptown and T-- is going to move to michigan if J-- is offered a position there.
M-- and D--, also gay, are sharing a house in DC and basically live like a married couple from the 50s, going to boring barbecues and wondering where the swingers are.
i, while not married, have a great roomie i spend most of my time with, am about to do something interesting with my life, and pretty much live as independently as i can.
most of my girlfriends are giving more thought to buying dogs and condos than finding a boyfriend/husband.
just sayin'.
9 comments:
just sayin' what??
That a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle? That men are the inferior, hairier, smellier, less well-accessorized counterparts to women? That men's true value to women is the occasional knocking of boots?
just curious, here.
just saying, in an elliptical MoDo-esque fashion (which shows that her writing style is craptastic), that this trend is probably not a trend. i think there's something interesting here; when we think of the normative narrative of gender and sex, we always think in pairs, like we're all going on noah's ark.
but it seems the narrative is changing, isn't it? the pairs are pairing off in same-sex couples or at least, same sex friendships. the girl friend is the new boyfriend, and all that.
is this because the traditional use for male companionship (financial support, physical protection - i'm talking old school definition of male usefulness, here) are out dated/moded, no longer relevant? or because of something else - like, better mortgage loans? for academics, this narrative isn't so strange. we've seen it in the domestic novels of elliott, bronte, austen, james; we've seen it in the political writings and the closeted journals of women since the 19th century (or earlier).
it's the rest of the world (boys and everybody else) who seem to be treating this like some kind of weird phenom.
and i said nothing about inferiority, dude. that might be, um, projection.
I can easily buy into the "times are changing" idea..that is clear to anyone paying attention.
But the "outmodedness" of old-school relationships I'd hang on the immaturity of the participants.
Yeah..men aren't "useful" in ways they once were, but how are you looking at and definining usefulness?
Camilla should probably say later, chuck, and find another interest. But who said prince charles was a prize? He's demonstrated to the world that he has the role of lout all wired.
Now, take 2 people who have their emotional $#iT together, and the discussion changes..doesn't it?
Ay-non
PS..as for whether I might be "projecting," I prbly deserved that..
I guess my first post was intended to provoke discussion and not defenses..
However AS a male, I've heard the arguments about male usefulness for a LONG time...and most revealing is what I hear and overhear the girls saying.
Yep, we tool-bearers are PRETty darn useful..
Ay-non
ah, yes. the emotional narrative. this is the one element that trumps all arguments for/against modern relationships because it's the one thing that can't truly be quantified, or even controlled (thus making it poor discussion material for daily newspapers.)
on the other hand, there is also something to be said about the emotional bonds that stand in these unmoded, or 'new', relationships. the emotional support a woman experiences from her friends is just as important as that provided by a lover or companion. is it deeper? it can be. my girlfriends know me better than any of my lovers have.
whether that's a product of my mistrust of my own lovers or something else, hard to say.
The modern relationship. A subset of modern "life." Both characterized by performance profiles, relevance to the moment, commodification, ennui, disposability, remote control, indifference and instant detachability.
Ooooooooooooooh, Yummers!
There is a certain risk with lovers which isn't there with friends. Friends can do great things like validate and commiserate, and pose few of the challenges which lovers do.
Lovers aren't "convenient" in the modern world. Not long-term. They don't fit in well with the long-term projection. Lovers have shelf-life. WE have shelf-life.
So, here we are at the point of having become products. 50% more!
A-non
i must have really different friends.
compared to my lovers, my friends are piranha; they are nattering, loving wasps, demanding more of me than anyone i've known.
but i see your point. no one makes the effort anymore.
Post a Comment