creators home
creators.com lifestyle web

Recently

Later Love DEAR SUSAN: My mom was in her late 50s when she found love again after divorcing my dad. She used an online dating site to find it — but this was before the site you mentioned existed. It seems a fine match, and they have been married for …Read more. A Perfect 10 DEAR SUSAN: I had to laugh at the letter from a man describing himself as a "Richard Gere" looking for a woman who is a professional, intelligent and a perfect 10. The problem might just be in his math! I've noticed that men rate …Read more. Choose Happiness DEAR SUSAN: This positive advice is for a fellow blogger, who seems to be having a hard time: It takes work to escape the comfort zone that keeps you making the same mistakes. (It's easier if you have the help of a good therapist, but people have …Read more. The Uninvited DEAR SUSAN: Your column on being left out of a couple's world has made me respond to an advice columnist for the first time in my life. The problem is much bigger than you seem to realize. When I was part of a couple, we did a lot of socializing. I …Read more.
more articles

More Trouble?

Share Comment

DEAR SUSAN: I know plenty of good human beings who happen to be male. But like many of my female friends, I'm basically satisfied with my life. There is nothing I want so badly that I'm willing to endure the downside of a sexual relationship in order to get it. And many of my friends feel the same. Romantic relationships are far more trouble than they're worth. Even in the face of active discrimination by couples (and some individuals) who believe being in a relationship is the be-all and end-all of life, on a day-to-day basis voluntary celibacy is far better than the drama I see around me in male-female relationships every day. Now, it's imaginably possible this might change one day, but I'm not looking for anyone at present. What about that is so hard to understand? — From the "Single File" blog

DEAR BLOGGER: B-b-but — this advice columnist is sputtering because a close friend of hers is fresh from a badly ended romance, and I feel her pain. She was ecstatic at first, delirious that she had found the man who embodied all she wanted. On his end, he impulsively promised to make basic changes in his life that would accommodate their newfound love. But as time dragged on, with no action on his part, the love between them foundered. Yes, she cried and wailed and resolved never again to feel love, but in a very short time even that resolution changed. Today she is again in her productive life, busy and gratified by other kinds of relationships — and so very grateful for the love she felt. Knowing she is capable of loving someone so deeply is what she is focusing on, not their sour disillusion. Even with the tears shed, she feels she's a better woman. It's those feelings, of life and love, that you're missing out on by barricading yourself against them. And sometimes the drama of love has a happy ending. It's a gamble, for sure; so is crossing the street. But those love feelings are worth the risk of being hurt.

At least I think so.

DEAR SUSAN: In a relationship, fidelity is giving yourself to one and only one. Infidelity is the opposite of that. There is no ownership. — From the "Single File" blog

DEAR BLOGGER: Yet some lovers feel their relationship gives them property rights, meaning total ownership of the partner they consider property. That mentality is the underlying cause of swinging, swapping and nonstop ogling of the other gender. When a relationship is wide-open, lovers are firmly assured of their partner's love but are free to pursue interests and friendships without the partner's jealousy or possessiveness. The relationship is strong, committed and closed sexually. But when it is unsure, tenuous and immature, partners feel smothered by the other's grip, possessed. They may feel flattered by that at first — pleased that their lover wants them so much — but in a short period of time, that wears off. The feelings that remain are not remotely close to the real thing.

DEAR SUSAN: A recent "Single File" blogger made a comment that is very enlightening and so true. It's the little things that make someone unique. — From the "Single File" blog

DEAR BLOGGER: Agreed. Those "little things" can bring you breathtakingly close to each other, but they can also drive a Mack truck-sized wedge between you. For me, those little things aren't really so small. Such as? The way the person treats the waiter in a restaurant or offers an arm to help a disabled person cross the street, the way he/she gently takes your hand to hold. Want more little things? The way he/she watches you enter a revolving door to make sure you're safe, the way he/she disagrees without being disagreeable, the way he/she passes the bread — gently, lovingly or matter-of-factly — more interested in you than the food. And then there's humor. Does he/she have the light touch — make you smile or laugh out loud once in a while? Does he/she understand your brand of humor? Yes, indeed it is small things that can add up to large emotions that can tip the boat or bring you both to safe harbor. Think small.

Have a question for Susan? Send it to her in care of this newspaper or online at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM


Comments

5 Comments | Post Comment
"Yet some lovers feel their relationship gives them property rights, meaning total ownership of the partner they consider property. That mentality is the underlying cause of swinging, swapping and nonstop ogling of the other gender."

I know I'm flogging a dead, deaf, willfully ignorant horse, but here I go anyway.

SUSAN: YOU DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT *ACTUAL* SWINGING, SWAPPING, POLY, PLURALITY (a word no one actually uses, FYI) ETC ETC. So for the love of god, stop spouting off your condescending, uninformed opinions as fact. Having experienced, in depth, life in all these communities, I can say, AS A FACT, that the concept of ownership in a relationship IS NOT THE CAUSE OF SWINGING. I know this will be a shock, as all of us who live unconventional sex lives are emotionally immature, empty shells, but the reasons people get into swinging and open relationships, are as individual and varied as the people themselves.

One other unrelated comment. A survey response of 1900 unmarried does not give you a "plumb line" into umarrieds. It gives you an unscientific, slanted sample. Any researcher worth their salt will also point out that data that relies on people self reporting their personal behavior has certain reliability issues. Not to say the results are wrong, but merely that it is not representative of singles as a whole. You need to leave room for other opinions, too.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Walkie
Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:30 AM
I'm off to read some Dan Savage now. There is an open minded columnist that allows for opinions and lifestyles different from his own. Very refreshing.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Walkie
Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:34 AM
Right on, Walkie. Seriously? Swingers think they own each other? That's got to be the most ignorant thing Susan has ever said about open relationships, and she has said some really, really stupid things. But I doubt she reads these comments, and likely doesn't care what anyone else says. She doesn't want to know the truth, becasue it would contradict her own personal view of what relationships should be like. She just doesn't have enough room in her small mind for any other point of view.
Comment: #3
Posted by: blondein_tokyo
Wed Feb 1, 2012 4:22 PM
I'm LW#1, and I'm out of here.

In this particular forum, it's not acceptable to want something different for myself than what the columnists wants for herself. Nor is it acceptable to go out and get it, or to enjoy a lifestyle that's structured differently from what she perceives to be the ideal. Any assertion to the contrary results in public criticism, as does any behavior aside from matrimaniac idolatry or childish whimpering over what we have or haven't got.

I won't be checking back in. The grass really is greener on my side of the fence.
Comment: #4
Posted by: R.A.
Fri Feb 3, 2012 9:02 AM
@Walkie (comment #1): You are incorrect when you state that "nobody" uses the word "plurality" to refer to relationships. Historically, before what you probably call "polygamy" was declared illegal at the federal level, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (a.k.a. the "Mormons") formally referred to it as "plural marriage." Breakaway LDS sects which continue to practice plural marriage illegally still refer to it with this terminology.

This is not some linguistic quibble with only historical relevance; a case to re-legalize plural marriage even now is working its way through the Utah courts, and in the wake of the same-sex marriage controversy almost certainly will reach the Supreme Court.

Now that such things are in the daily news, Walkie, I respectfully suggest that you might wish to shore up your own vocabulary on counter- and extra-cultural relationships before you harangue Susan about hers.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Spikeygrrl
Tue Feb 7, 2012 9:05 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
Other similar columns
Amy Alkon
The Advice Goddess
by Amy Alkon
Jan Denise
Larry Meeks
Ethnically Speaking
by Larry Meeks
More
Susan Deitz
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month