| PERSONAL ESSAYS |
Das ewig weibliche zieht uns hinan.
The eternally feminine leads us forward.
-- Goethe
He who binds himself to a joy does the winged life destroy,
But he who kisses the joy as it flies lives in Eternity's sunrise.
-- William Blake
Only connect.
-- E. M. Forster
I'm finally ready to declare
myself. I am a ladies' man. A womanizer. A libertine. A rake. A rogue. A
roué. A goddamn running loose dog. I'd admit to being a lecher, but that word implies a
solipsistic predation that I hope never applies to any of my relations with the mysterious sex. This
is about something more sacred than anything a drooling wanker could appreciate.
This is about worship. From the time the testosterone kicked in, I have knelt at the altar of that
which is female in this world. I love women. What I love in them is something that moves and must be
free to do so. I love their smells, their textures,
|
|
 |
|
their complexities, the inexhaustible variety of
their psychic weather patterns. I love to flirt with them, dance with them, and to discourse with them
endlessly on the differences between men and women. I love to make love.
The sexual fires have always burned bright in my brainstem. Priapically preoccupied, I've written
poetry by the ream, stormed police lines, ridden broncs, thrown punches and generally embarrassed
myself on countless occasions. (Actually, I suspect that history consists largely of foolish things
men have done to show off for women.)
There are probably twenty-five or thirty women -- I certainly don't count them -- for whom I feel an
abiding and deep emotional attachment. They're scattered all over the planet. They range in age from
less than half to almost twice my own. Most of these relationships are not actively sexual. Some
were at one time. More never will be. But most of them feel as if they could become so. I love the
feel of that tension, the delicious gravity of possibilities.
I must also admit that for me this gravity generally increases with novelty. The New, the fresh
and unknown expanses of the emotional frontier, hold a fascination for me that I wish they did not. This
breeds superficiality and the appearance of a hunger for conquest. But, unfortunately, I love the
voltage, the charged gap between two people that can draw across itself such huge flows of
information from so many parts of us. I love the feel of human bandwidth -- intercourse
on all channels -- and there is so much more to exchange when nothing is yet known.
Despite many clear and cosmic messages that women (and death) were meant to be the curricula of my
life -- my dharma -- and that practically everything I've done has been about trying to understand
them, I resisted formal matriculation into this perilous course of study until well past the age
when most men have already given up and settled into monogamies as comfortable and unquestioned as
their football loyalties.
And now, late in my forties, I doubt I'll ever be monogamous again. For reasons I'll explain, I feel
strangely exiled into a condition of emotional wandering. I think my heart will travel widely. I
want to know as many more women as time and their indulgence will permit me.
Even so, I also want to go on loving the women I love now -- and I do love them -- for the rest of
my life. These are relationships that have already lasted much longer than most marriages, even
though some of them had to endure the hiatus of my own previous monogamies, one imposed by society,
the other by what felt like an act of God.
The Road to Hell
I tried monogamy despite feeling from the get-go that being monogamous made as much sense as
declaring that I liked, say, mashed potatoes and gravy so darned much that I would resolve to eat
nothing else for the rest of my life.
So I got married and stayed that way for seventeen years, attempting with some grim success to
impose fidelity on myself. It was, I figured, the price I had to pay in return for a good place to
raise kids. And though I loved my ex-wife, and still do, I wasn't in love with her. Didn't believe
in it, actually. I thought being in love was a myth people had invented to punish themselves for
lacking it.
Fidelity always felt like work: an act of will rather than nature. As time passed, nature gradually
gained the upper hand, as she almost always does. I was never quite able to stop flirting -- a form
of exchange that has always felt holy to me -- nor was I able to disguise from my wife my
undiminished appreciation of other women. This led to sexual distance between us, and I started to
get hungry. There began to be incidents of what is called, in rock n roll, "offshore drilling."
Not realizing that women hate deceit even more than they hate infidelity -- and they always
know -- I turned into a sneak and a liar. I became someone I couldn't respect, and so I left my
marriage.
Not long after that, I experienced the miracle of voluntary monogamy for one brief and
blissful period, during which, at the age of forty-six, I did fall in love for the first time in my
life. During the year
that followed, it was as though there were no other women except in the most abstract sense. I still
delighted in the presence of pulchritude, but it was an appreciation as sublime in its detachment as
my enjoyment of nature's other wonders. I didn't want to do anything about these beauties,
any more than 
I would want do something about sunsets or Bach fugues. Cynthia
was the only woman. But two days before we were to be married, I put her on a plane in Los Angeles
and somewhere between there and New York the virus that had been secretly consuming her stopped her
heart.
The most important consequence of losing Cynthia is that I now believe in the human soul. I had to
see it and, once seen, it became obvious to me. No longer did I dismiss it as a biological
artifact, a kind of software that arises in the electrochemical sputterings of the squishyware and
cannot run otherwise. Rather I can feel the soul as an independent though immaterial identity that
wears bodies like a costume.
I finally had the answer to a question I'd been asked shortly before I met her. I'd been speaking to
a bunch of kids at the New York University film school about Virtual Reality when I got the usual
question about virtual sex. This was such a predictable question that I had a mental tape I always
ran in response to it that went something like: "I don't get the fascination with virtual sex. Sex
is about bodies, and being in VR is like having had your body amputated. What could be less sexy?"
At this point, a very embodied young woman in the front row raised her beautiful hand. "But don't
you think," she asked, "that when it comes to sex, the body is just a prosthesis?"
My tape stopped running. "A prosthesis for what?"
"That's the interesting question, isn't it." she smiled, all sphinxy.
Yeah. That was the interesting question alright, and Cynthia, in both the way she inhabited her body
and the way she remained after leaving it, answered it for me. There is indeed a hand that moves the
hand, there is a kiss that lives inside both sets of lips.
At that point I decided that, whatever the pressures of society or the propensity of most women to
insist on it, I wouldn't attempt monogamy again unless and until
I encountered someone who induced it in me as naturally as she did. And I like to believe that
nothing would make me happier than to have that happen. To fall in love. To be singularly devoted
again.
(But I have to confess to aspects of my current behavior pattern that are subconsciously designed to
prevent this very thing from happening. If just once in your life you've put all of your emotional
eggs in one basket, only to have that basket smashed almost immediately, it inclines you toward more
distributed systems of emotional support.)
There is a central woman in my life, a luminous Swede who lives in San Francisco. She is the person
I always call when I feel bad in the middle of the night. She is beautiful and funny, as game on an
adventure as Indiana Jones; she is a sexual poet, and I love her.
That she is not the only woman in my life pains her -- as will this piece -- and I wish to cause her
no pain. But I learned from my marriage what suffering can be inflicted by someone who tries
unsuccessfully to contain himself in the service of someone else's feelings.
And scrupulous honesty, though it requires courage on both sides, is a lot more practical than most
men believe it to be. The fact that I don't lie to her about these other encounters brings us closer
rather than separating us. And sin, as Nietzsche said (and I often quote), is that which separates.
|
|
Comments ( 92 )
I have read this article twice and see myself in it at several levels. Moreover I see several of my fifty- and sixty-something friends who also could identify with the points made. I have passed it along to them. More of this type of stuff please! Why is it that the men who certainly have no right (looks-wise, personality-wise, etc.) seem to have the most requirements for the "beauty" of their women and have to declare that they can't possibly be monogamous? I find myself thinking after trying to read Barlow's rambling nonsensical morass of one juicy rationalization after another: Who the hell would ever actually [want] to fuck this guy? Never mind want to have a relationship with him?
JP, I find it very encouraging that you have finally come out. Congratulations. I, for one, am proud of you. There is a word for your kind of lifestyle (that includes honesty and loving multiple partners): it is polyamory. The lifestyle of having many loves (whether sexual or not) is often mislabeled as swinging (the lifestyle of having many sexual partners). America Online used to host a Polyamory Forum on Wednesday nights, and there is a national magazine, www.lovemore.com. If you are searching for polyamory information, try this and this. There are many, many households out there who live happily in this lifestyle. As someone living in one of these households, I thank you.
This is exactly the type of article that needs to be published for a larger audience, in order for people to experience a real sense of self, and not just the type of quick fix ideas that predominate in today's world of "How to have 500 orgasms during a vacation getaway."
As a fellow non-monogamist, I wanted to express my thanks at sending your brave story out to be seen by the non-initiated, who may gasp in horror but will hopefully see some grain of inspiration there. I am married, and have been for five years. My wife and I are both non-monogamist, and I am still dedicated to her forever. There are plenty of people who have shattered the myth that there is only one way to have a relationship, but our stories are kept quiet, and out of the sights and minds of an unwitting public. Thank you for helping us on the road to validation, and maybe the repercussions for your coming out all be as positive as you postulate.
"A Lady's Man and Shameless" is a gorgeous essay on love. Do let JP Barlow know that there are women out here who feel the same way about loving men! For myself, I am passionately in love with three men, and loving with several more. Yes, JP, love is infinite.
Great article by JP Barlow. All of the feelings I've never been able to express.
John Perry Barlow responds. . . Frankly, I hope you're right about my being proven wrong as soon as older women have as much money to pay for younger men as vice versa. It is a case where I'd be delighted to be proven wrong, since, as I tried to make clear in the piece, it is a state of affairs that makes me very uncomfortable. It doesn't seem fair. But I do think there is more than economy involved here. Though I admit to a couple of exceptions, the younger women who are with me are not being paid to be there, at least not with money. I think I provide them their side of the value equation with resources like experience, contacts, confidence, etc. Of course women care as much about beauty as men do, but they generally don't stop with only that beauty that is visible on the surface. I'm merely saying that women are diverse in the qualities they find attractive in men. You should have taken this assertion for the compliment to women it is. Finally, I'm not sure that name-calling is likely to lead to any improvement in relations between the sexes, but then I doubt that we share that objective anyway.
This statement by your contributor JP Barlow: "A corollary of this inequity of nature is that men go on being appealing to young women at ages where the converse tends not be to true. This, I believe, is what drives the ancient emotional economy in which beauty is the currency on the one side and currency the currency on the other". . . is bullshit. As soon as older women have as much money to pay for younger men as vice versa, he will be proven completely wrong. It's already happening. It's the inequality of culture, not nature. When are you going to have some balance to this idiotic traditionalist attitude? If rich older men are so irresistible to young women, how do beautiful but poor young men get so many girlfriends? Women care as much about beauty as men. But until recently women have been unable to chose mates based on sexual attraction alone. What next, a contributor arguing that the proper role for women is kinder, kurk and kuchen? God, what an asshole!
I recently read the article by JP Barlow, and I was happy because I find that even at my age (twenty-two), I have come to realize a lot of his views on sex, relationships and life in general (especially "Inner Lesbian"), I already share as a young man. On a side note, I just recently discovered this site. I love it because I am quite into my sexuality, but not just in terms of daily wanking to Jenny McCarthy -- in terms of smells, feelings and raw physicality, as well as mental stimulation. It's nice to feel part of a community of people who are like me, who defy the conventional intellectual/sexbomb dichotomy. After all, what guy doesn't dream of bringing out the nympho in that pale and nerdy beauty over there in Fiction?
Superb story and exactly the sort of writing I had hoped to find in Hooksexup. Some of the sentences -- and in one case a subheading -- are spectacular.
In this age of faux bravado and orchestrated danger, it was very refreshing to read Mr. Barlow's essay on fidelity. I had never even heard of your site before now. Someone had linked out to this particular article in her discussion of polyamory. I'll certainly be back to see if the rest of your site brings the same satiety.
Reply from Author: Ouch! That hurt, but it sounds to me that, however surrogate my role, you think I have it coming for what your lover did to you. If that is so, may I also apologize on his behalf. This is the kind of guy who gives mine an even worse name than we deserve. Nevertheless, I don't easily accept the charge that I am glorifying what I am. I am trying to learn how to live with myself. Accepting one's faults is not quite the same as approving of them. I also try to give others plenty of warning of what I am, extending them the liberty to make their own choices about whether to have a relationship with me, and what they can expect of such a relationship. Fortunately, thisseems to be working reasonably well. This is bragging, but I'm pretty certain there is not a woman that I've ever slept with who would not be glad to hear my voice on the phone. I also reject your use of the word "womanizer" or at least the spirit in which you used it. Womanizers keep score. They have "conquests." For them, it's about power. I honestly believe that's not how it is for me. I am never with women I'm not deeply fond of and I certainly don't mount trophies. Thus, to call me a womanizer in that pejorative way is like calling someone with many close friends a "humanizer." I'm sorry for what this man has done to your life, but I believe that most, if not all, of the damage he has done you is the result of his deceit, something no good relationship can survive. I also wonder if your own self-appreciation was not an issue. Anyone who will try to revise herself so dramatically to suit the unstated expectations of another is transmitting a message of willing submissiveness that I personally would find very unattractive. As to whether or not I am a SLEAZEBALL, I certainly hope not. But it strikes me that anyone who finds me so will have plenty of time to see me coming, read my clearly worded warning placard, and head the other way. It's an odd louse who announces himself so clearly in advance. But thank you for announcing yourself so clearly as well.
I've tried for the past 5 years to understand the man I loved, and his need for other women, his appreciation of them. I longed for the answer all that time. Why wasn't he satisfied with ME? I changed my hair color, my breast size, everything I could think of, yet he kept looking elsewhere. He was not so honest about it, though. I agonized for 5 and a half years. Until 2 months ago. I finally let go. I let go of the constant battle of competition, I let go of beating myself up for not being good enough to capture his attention, I let go of him. Or perhaps, better phrased, I let HIM go. Oh, he cried at first, but I knew in my heart it was exactly what he wanted (freedom), but didn't have the Hooksexup to admit. After 2 weeks, he let go too, and as far as I can tell is "over it." Your article gave a very in-depth view into the mind of a womanizer. While it doesn't erase the years of pain I've endured, it answered some nagging questions. And helped me to understand that while he loved me (I knew he did), he was not IN love with me. Doesn't hurt any less, I guess, but thanks for the input. Oh, and I wouldn't want ANYONE'S daughter meeting this kind of guy. I think the article's a cop-out on the guy's part, and an obvious attempt to rationalize a HUGE LACK of control. This writer glamorizes himself and says, "At least I'm honest." BIG DEAL! He's STILL a SLEAZEBALL, and a sorry excuse for a "man." I wish there were an easy way for women to spot these louses, so we could run like hell in the other direction! Rarely are they so honest up front. In fact, I never heard of an honest one outside this article! LG 1/19/98 When I first quickly scanned this article, my initial reaction was total disgust and rage. However, having read it again from beginning to end, I'd say Mr. Barlow has a very honest, healthy outlook on relationships, however transient they may or may not be. I myself believe in monogamy, but as long as he is honest with his partners, well, to each his own. Nevertheless, there are some rather condescending comments I do not like, which Mr. Barlow has made. "I wish I could be as comfortable with the absence of beauty in my partners . . ." "That many women will look beyond looks is a very lucky thing . . ." ". . .there are beautiful souls within bodies that are the female equivalent of my own, and while some of these are close friends, they lack the sexual spice . . ." Now this is disgusting. Maybe women don't put as much emphasis on men's looks, but they still matter, believe me. And as long as Mr. Barlow makes comments such as these, it implies that men "can't help themselves," that they can only be attracted to physically beautiful women. This is a cop-out! And women should stop pandering to men so much. We should all "let ourselves go" physically, like so many men do. And what about these "women with beautiful souls" that Mr. Barlow considers good enough to have as friends, but nothing beyond that? What an insult to these female friends!! Is Mr. Barlow trying to rationalize why presumably most men would want nothing beyond friendship with these women? Thank God not all men out there are pompous jerks like him! Mr. Barlow also says a lot of women can't have orgasms. Well, part of that is because it's something that doesn't come naturally to many women; it takes a lot of "work" and self-confidence and awareness before a woman can learn to allow herself to orgasm. But another factor is that some men don't want to take the time to bring her to orgasm; they're just too impatient or apathetic. Also, reading a story like this made me momentarily sad, to think that monogamy is so difficult for men. But then I had to remind myself that Mr. Barlow is just one man, and that it's therefore just one man's opinion. Thankfully, there are many men out there who, contrary to the macho stereotype, actually enjoy monogamy.
Your piece was extraordinary. I felt I completely identified with the views you expressed. Thanks to the 'net, I have found women that want to build relationships based solely on the feelings created by email and chat encounters. This, I think, is the ultimate proof that "the body is just a prosthesis." Congratulations, great piece!
I hear you! Boy, do I hear you! I'm a woman attracted to many men. But when I am "in love" with one, he's the only one I am looking at. And I never want to share him. But your article certainly expressed a lot of my own feelings about monogamous relationships which have gotten old and boring. I suspect it's because the people involved have closed off to further intimacy with each other, because they became too close, too vulnerable. Anyway, I don't have answers; I have feelings. Following them has often turned out to be foolish, and has hurt people I loved. And feelings, though they can seem so intense and important at any given time, seem to come and go "like a storm" (as a friend told me). But I am not ready to lose my marriage, which is a pretty good one, or [jeopardize] the life my young children are used to and happy with in order to satisfy my whims and fantasies. They come and go, as do the men who star in them, but my husband stays solidly beside me no matter what my flaky, fickle self puts him through. I don't think I would want to love and be married to someone like myself, someone who doesn't recognize and appreciate a good thing when she's got it, who is always wanting to fly off to try new things and people, and what for? My, but I do go on!
I wish I could write like that. Hats off to Mr. Barlow. Maybe pull down the zippers, too. A lot of what he said makes sense. I'm only writing because I've worked out some slightly different flavors of the same tunes. Like for instance, I'm married, been married; it's a very practical arrangement, so long as you don't have kids. Which we don't. As he says, the distaff can smell infidelity a galaxy away, and mine is no different, so I don't go down that spaceway. Besides, my particular piece of equipment was declawed a long time ago and has never had quite the interest ever since. But, as Mr. Barlow intimates, the main sexual organ is the mind, and my mind works fine. The key to women is to respect and adore and cherish each one and let each one know that she is the one and only most special woman in the whole universe. It may seem like a waste of time under the circumstances. What can I get out of it? Well, there's laughter, and entertainment, and something to do while I'm waiting in line at the grocery store or the bank or the gas station; there's all the peeks that are semi-intentional, of stocking tops and cleavage and bra-cups through the buttons and even panties from just-parted legs. The next look always goes to the face where there is the discernable trace of a wink. Those are the strange women, the friends, of course, with whom I share time, hugs, strokes, a cry when I (or they) need it, and talks when my wife insists on being somewhere else. As for orgasms, they just aren't that important anymore. So what he had to say rung some bells with me.
I commend Hooksexup for producing, in this piece, the greatest subhead ever written. As for the article itself, I'd like to believe it is a thoughtful examination of loving many, and not a defense of what many (sadly) deem indefensible. It ranks up there with the Charles Bukowski line, "To be a great writer/you must fuck a great many women/beautiful women," as arguments I want in the depth of my soul to believe to be true.
Boring, immature, self-indulgent and flat-thinking fear of women.
I just wanted to say how happy (and pleasantly surprised) I was to discover your webzine. So many sites promise what, so far, only you have delivered. I just finished reading John Perry Barlow's "A Ladies' Man and Shameless," and I was genuinely moved by his "lunatic candor." Thank you so much for making this quality of work available.
A more honest and erudite treatment on what's on the mind of the fin de siecle sensualist I have not read. Thank you, Mr. Barlow, for your brilliant and, yes, soulful exposition of a theme of paramount importance to the modern male.
My take away from JPB's article: What a sexist asshole! I HATE it when older men will do ANYTHING -- say ANYTHING, use any pseudo-science possible -- to rationalize the fact that they need younger, less-experienced, less threatening women to pump up their egos. First of all . . . why else wouldn't he have sex with close female friends who he otherwise likes as people? He sure is probably missing out on some great nookie! Also, as a thirty-year-old woman, let me say this: Younger men hit on me. Sorry, John, a fresh dewy complexion, more-ready biology, and just a touch of that respectful awe over one's life accomplishments is a universal turn-on, and not just for men. One last piece of rant pie before I leave you all: If he thinks that women are somehow less orgasmic than men, it's because he is using his hands and mouth to write stupid articles and say stupid stuff rather than using those items to please his partner. Also, let me note that most women will probably come a lot more and a lot more freely when they feel totally ACCEPTED by their partner . . . when they feel that they are beautiful, not ten years too old or ten pounds too heavy.
What a magnificent dialog for a genuine man. With almost two decades more experience on my chart, I relate quite sincerely to Mr. Barlow. I found myself in almost the entirety of his writing. I feel very honored to have come from an era when the sight of a breast could drive a young man to primal acts. I, as well, remained married for a very long forty-one years. Then, in the autumn of my time, I found a true love. A beautiful, ambitious redhead. She's twenty-eight years my junior and helping me get younger daily. Thanks for a very interesting site.
Simply the most beautifully written essay I've read this year. Thank you so much, Hooksexup Magazine, for publishing this work, and Mr. Barlow, for a glimpse at your wonderful soul.
What a great article! I've just read "Shameless," by John Perry Barlow and I'd have to say I wholeheartedly agree with him. I'm a man, age 26, who is currently involved in a polyamorous relationship with my girlfriend of three years. She's a good touch more poly than I am, but not for lack of trying. I'm quite in touch with my feminine side, but as you say, King Dick can rise up at the most inopportune times. Then again, I spent years chasing near-soulless Barbie dolls, confused by why I never consummated the act. I, too, have appeared superficial for chasing them. Your article has been enlightening. I'm sure I'll reread it again soon.
Overall I liked this essay a lot. As a woman on the edge of 30 (2 weeks to go!) who has never had much use for monogamy, I find his descriptions of the experience of many loves (but still being completely in the moment and in love with each one) and the delightful ongoing sexual tension between dear longtime companions who may or may not be "just friends" dead-on, accurate, joyously affirming, and once again making me glad that someone else somewhere out there whom I've never met, feels exactly as I feel. But I start running into problems when Barlow starts making the usual generalizations about what women are like and what men are like, reinforcing the usual stereotypes--this cuts back on the liberation factor an awful lot. The fact is, stereotypically speaking, men are supposed to be like Barlow. And women are "naturally" monogamous--even a lot of women who have responded to this essay reinforce that....and frankly, that's bullshit! I'm pretty "out of the closet" as a nonmonogamous person, and I'm friends with quite a few other people like me, and just as many of them are female as male, and in many longterm relationships that have "opened up", the instigator of the "opening" was a woman--as it was in my case, with my partner of 6 years. The specter of female "infidelity" (I think that term is only accurate when there's deception involved) is MUCH more threatening to mainstream society than male "infidelity", which is jokingly tolerated....in some cultures, women are regularly murdered, with cultural sanctions, by people who claim to "love" them, for any suggestion that they are less than "faithful." So both men and women are rather emotionally invested in maintaining this ridiculous notion that only men are beset by the wandering-eye-and-other-parts. There's no scarcity of beauty, brilliance, comradeship, and sexiness in the world, that's for sure. The Gods have blessed us with dazzling variety, and life is for embracing! Women notice this too, believe me! And every lover is different, in their styles, laughter, sounds, tastes, smells, experiences, fantasies, turn-ons, dreams, rhythms--every little world created by the chemistry of every pair of lovers is different....mmmm MMMMM! But there's no cutesy name like "rake" or "ladies man" for me. I suppose I'll settle for "slut," there are women bent on reclaiming it, and I guess it's kind of cute, but it still has quite a whopper of a cultural judgment....there's still that notion that I might be fun for a roll in the hay but no man would want to be in a "real" relationship with me and that I couldn't possibly claim to have been raped in a court of law since a "slut" is assumed to be fair game for nonconsensual attacks, so....not in mixed company, only among fellow sluts do I feel safe with that one. "Libertine" is gender-neutral and doesn't have too much of a sting, so I'll take that. I also have problems with the ageism and the sort of retarded sexual development he exhibits (sorry, but that's what I think of when people can't be turned on by folks in their own age group), but I guess men of a certain generation can't help that. I like fantasizing about teenage boys and college kids too....I don't act on it much though, cause I'm guessing the chemistry wouldn't really last if I spent too much time with 'em _outside_ of bed....and time spent with a lover outside of bed is just as important to me as time spent in it. That part about young girls or whatever, also seems kind of off the topic of non-monogamy--probably could have made an interesting separate essay. overall, cool. MK, Chicago 6/23/99 John Perry's article made me laugh and smile alot...and it all sounds great (all the good loving,sexual satisfaction and romantic love aspect too!) except of course for the deception part yeech thats a killer.....i think people try to follow the course of monogamy so as not to hurt the other person with whom they are involved....betrayal sucks.....i think trusting the person with whom you are in love with is very very important...i think its more important than seducing some new man and playing the game of sex....no matter how enjoyable it could be......you're intellectualizing sex alot....I think sex between two people is sacred..not in a religious way more in a soulful way.... I don't know why but if my lover were to sleep with someone else i would somehow feel that something sacred was broken...and maybe it's deeper than we all know..and maybe you as a man who loves loves loves loves women can't go that deep with a woman that you would rather it be more superficial... but i agree woman are amazing.. but no one wants to be adored like a trophy or a fix i think woman want to be loved for who they are.. not someone's fantasy.. and the bottom line is this...and this i feel very strong from the gut like listen guys ...IF YOU WANT TO HAVE GREAT MIND BLOWING SEX WITH A WOMAN THEN YOU SHOULD SATISY THEM FIRST ...MAKE THEM WEAK WITH DESIRE AND HUNGER AND THEN YOU'LL BE SURE TO BE SATISFIED...
Mr. Barlow, I commend you on insightful communication from the heart, in fluid style. I also thank you for this insight as it has sparked some feelings I have been ignoring. I find myself 30 years old and for the first time in my life experiencing rampant flirtation and dating. Wow! It is a new language for me, and a lot of fun. My previous focus was based on the model set by my fiercely monogamous parents, hence I set forth on a mission to secure my mate-for-life and move on to the next mountain. Only through experiencing loss (my wife of 5 years "fell in love" with her mentor/boss 20+years her senior) myself do I realize how much was missing for me. I bought into our North American nuclear model a little too quickly without an exploration of who I am, what I want/need, etc. I believe it was Keene in Fire In The Belly who said "figure out where you are going, see who wants to come along and never confuse the order". I screwed the order up but am fortunate to have turned this into a fabulous learning event in my life. My relationship was comfortable but lacked passion (what else is new). In time, I will pursue 'jumper cables' for the next monogamous relationship (and there will be another) but for the moment I am on a discovery mission. Once reviled by the way my fellow beast gawked and impaled himself on the mysterious gender, I now revel in the dance of tension and do it with a new sense of freedom and control. Beyond the biological legacy, I am just now developing an appreciation (dare I say understanding) for the 'difference' (what is this thing called 'intimacy' they keep bringing up?). I know that my current rampage (different from the hormonal collegial version) is part of healing and a little bit of catch-up for lost time, but expect that my appreciation for this newfound 'language', flirtation, has a permanent residence. Direct open exchange of real impulses and feelings between the sexes seems like a basic concept that the rest of the world has concealed from North America (except Quebec). My candour shocks me sometimes but is generally well received by those that can handle a 'rebounder'. Monogamy will work its way back into my life some day, but as you suggest, when 'naturally induced'. Thanks for sparking a little critical thought and please continue to contribute your excellent writing. Regards Mwmonk37@hotmail
Mr. Barlow, I read your article yesterday and watched a movie today called "The Man Who Loved Women." I think you should make a point to see this movie--just make sure you get the original French version from 1977 by Truffaut, not the 1983 version with Burt Reynolds. Striking parallels to your life and, as fate would have it, my boyfriend's. Really, please watch it. Let us know what you think.
A poignant, well thought out piece, that dwells on a grey area that many people have problems with. Well researched through living it -- and equally wel balanced in the bold-faced unapologeticness of it, the piece is one that I hope will spawn more its kind.
Yes...The truth is far less likely to burn....
BEFORE ENTRY MY FEED BACK, I WILL LIKE TO RECEIVE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT ''A LADIES'MAN AND SHAMLESS''
KENN NJOKU
E-mail address:
I very much enjoyed reading this article; Barlow certainly has a way with words.
But thinking about the content made me wonder: of the women who do decide to
take their chances with a self-proclaimed womanizer, how many are doing it as a
personal challenge? The same personal challenge that makes them take up with
drunkards and drug addicts and wife-beaters, and never leave? Their fantasy and
belief that they are that magic special woman who will make that man turn around
and become the image they want in a man -- someone who isn't what they are
today -- whether it be drunkard, addict, womanizer or whatever....
This is a very strong fantasy that women have, to be so special they can work
miracles. And sometimes they do, but usually they don't and they keep trying;
they don't recognize that if it's going to work, it will happen immediately and stay
that way as long as they are there. They just keep on pluggin' at it. And being
disappointed that it's not going the way they want it to.
I hope Barlow is able to distinguish those women who see his womanizing style as
a challenge and doesn't stretch it out with them. If he sees them believing they
could be the one to change him like Cynthia did and make him monogamous again,
and knowing he won't (because he'll know in the same timeframe he knew with
Cynthia), he should make it really clear to them that they're not Cynthia and never
will be. Sometimes that isn't enough; some women think so well of themselves and
believe the fantasy so strongly, they won't give up.... and then he'll need to do
something more actively to break the fantasy, like leaving and not contacting them
for a long time.... painful, and rough on both parties, but necessary in the long run.
But as he said, I'd ask myself would I want my daughter to encounter such a man.
And because I would like to spare my daughter the pain of breaking up with someone
who cannot love her in the monogamous style she would want (assuming, and this
is a big assumption these days, that it *is* what she wants), I'd say I'd rather NOT
have her meet such a man. But I know she will, and I hope she will have the soul
and strength not to fall into a fantasy that cannot be fulfilled. That's as much as a
parent can hope for, that she'll have the brains and understanding to think things
out and do what she needs to do to be happy. And if she's happy being with someone
who won't commit to her, but will only love her for the moments they're together
and no more, then that's fine with me too..... (let go, MOM!)
Thanks for posting this most provocative article.
Umesh, This is great stuff !!!
I like men that like women. Your fun to flirt with. Would be interesting to talk to. Maybe... But, I really do believe in love. And that connection alone is not always as easy as it sounds. I do hope that you fall in love again. I know that your understanding and your fasination with women will always be a mystery to you, you are the type that dosen't want to miss anything. Then you are who you are.
5/01
Hm-m-m-m-m-m I must be the female equivalent. Just turned 40 this year and having the time of my life. I don't apologize for loving any (or all) of my men, but I am still working on the guilt.
I think I've dated you. You're nearly twice my age, brilliant, insightful and way out of my league. A great fuck too--your years of experience have given you skills that boys my age could only hope for. At first I was flattered that someone like you would be interested in me, but I came to understand that you had picked me for my innocence. You wanted someone who wouldn't realize what they were giving up by "sharing." I gave myself to you fully, wonderfully, sweetly, and in return you convinced me that I deserved less than your full attention. You taught me to lie too.
It was the single most devaluing experience in my life.
If you really loved me the way you professed, why would you do this to me? Why would you trade my self-respect for your own insecure indulgence? Easy answer: you wouldn't.
Excellent article. Glad to know I'm not the only perv out there. I'd like to add that there are women out there who have that same love for men (and other women) and there are men out there who desperately want to be special in the sense that is described in the article.
Finally, FINALLY a polyamorist comes out! :) When one tries to explain poly, the listeners usually shake their head and say something like "It's not possible to love so many, jealousy gets in the way, it's just lack of control, etc. etc. etc." What JP says about each love being special, each relation with different concurrent lovers being unique -- these are just the words I'd been searching for to explain my polyamory. (BTW, I am a 40-year-old woman.) Though some may use the poly label to justify greedy or out-of-control behaviour, I believe those who are polyamorists are heart do have the total connection with each lover that the author describes. Thank you for phrasing it well.
brilliant! i suppose this makes me a man's woman or a people's woman of late, but i wholeheartedly agree not only with the meat and merit of this lovely and open article, but also answer back that there are others, and we are free, and there are so many levels on which to interact with this world, of which the traditional monogamy is only one. perfectly presented here, free Love is another.
I understand you to the point of seeing myself, somewhat, in your thoughts and feelings. I have been married for 16 years, have two beautiful daughters, and am doing the mongamy thing as if "I am supposed to."
Like trees, flowers, the ocean, and the sunset, women are miracles, pushing humanity forward, with both their mystery, and their beauty...and I still love, and wish I could still be with, every single one of these beautiful creatures I continue to love, and celebrate!
I feel the main idea of this essay deeply, though I think the author's presentation is a bit sexist and exclusionary. It is clear that many women identify with the idea of loving many, but he doesn't seem to have considered that or even realy have a basis for understanding it. When the discussion turns to loving the beauty of younger women and that older women can play the same game as long as they are financial stable, I am lost.
If it's truly about love and worship of the soul and essence of another person - why are issues of beauty and financial assets even considered? Sorry, but still too masculine of a perspective for me.
On the other hand - it is comforting to see this article and read the responses. To me, the idea of monogamy has never sat quite right and always seemed somehow unnatural or dangerous to me.
I am still not sure that this feeling I have is not some dysfunctional response to childhood emotional trauma. It doesn't help that most of my social circle think that the idea of non-monogamy is bizarre. I know that no one believes me when I try to explain that the idea of someone being in love with only me is a terrifying idea. They cannot believe that a woman truly does not want to fall in love -- there MUST be something wrong with her. At least something unattractive or repulsive, anyway...But that idea confuses my friends because I am neither of those things.
Sometimes, I wonder if this is just my way of intellectualizing a deep fear of emotional intimacy and commitment. But I know that I feel so strongly and love so many, that that cannot possibly be true. The author said that he had been "in love" once, and I wonder. He still speaks of it as if it is the better ideal, however - and my heart still disagrees on that point.
I am still fairly young (28) and there is always the chance that I could finally fall in love and change my mind about all this. But until then, I still believe that as long as I can find enough of the right men to love...falling in love is a risk I am perfectly happy never to take.
"At the same time, there are beautiful souls within bodies that are the female equivalent of my own, and while some of these are close friends, they lack the sexual spice that really fuels most discourse between the sexes."
And thus begins my critique of John Barlow. The equivalent of your own body - but not good enough for you. I fully agree with you, Mr. Barlow, most people do hate deceit more than they hate infidelity, and good for you for finally having the basic decency not to lie to your partners - that is really the absolute minimum that anyone should expect from you, by the way. I must agree with some of the other commentators that have gone before me. It's fine if you want to be with several people, as long as you're honest with everyone. Whatever floats your boat. What are inexcusable are your twisted rationalizations of your own behavior. Why not just say, 'I like to fuck young, pert women and will keep on doing so until none of them will have me?' Instead you imply that it is a male universal, which you simply can't help. I think most of this article is self-indulgent, gender-essentialist rant that merely reinforces the stupid idea that the sexes are and forever will be mysterious to each other.
Oh, and I (as a bisexual woman) particularly HATE the phrase, "inner lesbian". It's one used by men who have only recently learned to give head to their partners and take more than 10 minutes when having sex. A man who really possessed an "inner lesbian" (and I've met them) would never make such a big deal of taking their time in bed.
I really loved this piece. The Ladies' Man expresses my own perspective on love perfectly.
I would also like to put in that his experience is not specific to the male gender. I myself am a woman, and I found that his sentiments and to a degree his experiences are an uncanny match for my own.
Additionally, I have encountered the same objection about "specialness" from partners or potential partners who were male. I can assure you that it is not a concern particular to females.
A big thank you goes to the Ladies' Man for articulating so well what I and others are feeling about honest love.
You are a genius. I'm sure I'm not the only guy who read this and thought "finally a person who understands this "foreign" concept that I feel is completely normal." For the record I am a 29yo male, with several female friends, a few girlfriends at a time (what can I say, I try) and only a handful of umarried male friends... they are dropping like flies. No one thinks I'm am anything but "immature and not even ready to grow". I started thinking that maybe they were right, but thanks to you, I know they just don't get me. Thanks again!
"Following a course that society would condemn"? Yes, what self-proclaimed Don Juan doesn't wrap himself in the mystique of the misunderstood artist/outlaw and spew banal thoughts about loving each woman individually and to the fullest. Society actually doesn't give much of a shit whether a man indulges the basic male urge to fuck every pretty thing that moves or not. Barlow none-too-subtly celebrates his "courage" in coming out, yet does a true Don Juan maintain a pseudo-girlfriend so he can be sure to have someone to call in the middle of the night on those occasions when he fails to romance some co-ed with a few random quotes from Philosophy 101? If you believe that Barlow is breaking major news regarding the (near) universal desire of men to fuck any and every woman that meets a personal threshhold of attractiveness and interest, then you need to, as they say, get out more. Barlow goes for it. That's cool. Many men dream of riding Harleys, not all that many actually do. Thankfully, the ones who do don't bore us with windy essays on their personal triumphs over social convention.
a GREAT essay. i'm 23 and find myself constantly 'loving' women. it's not quite the same as being IN love with women. at first, i thought it was a curse. i thought myself a 'womanizer' in the sense that it is used in one of these responses [as a bad man.] i enjoy the flirtateous conversations with the girl at the gas station or the book store. i enjoy the smiles and the 'thank you's' from the women that i make happy through my actions. i MOST CERTAINLY enjoy making each and every one of the women i involve myself with, feel like an angel. it makes me happy when i can 'love' a woman. i fear sometimes though that i will leave behind a wake of unhappy, unsatisfied women in the end; that through my actions, i am opening up their eyes to the world of 'better men' (as haughty as that sounds) and then leaving them to fend for themselves. after reading this essay, it has given me at least, a new understanding of what i once thought was a 'bad thing.' i felt like a mutant with a strange, new power. with the help of this essay, i am coming into an 'understanding' of my ways. i realize that my writing does not equal that of John Barlow, but i hope that i have conveyed my feelings apropriately. for your essay, i thank you...
i have to make one more observation. after reading my initial response, then reading more of the others, i noticed that many of them are 'based' on what seems to be an assumption that the 'lifestyle' that the author leads, is one of pure sexual ecstacy with many a pert sixteen year old. this just isn't so... i hope. in 'finding more of myself' in this essay, i have to say that for the most part, my relationships do not entail mass-sexual gratification. being a 'lover of women' for many i think eoncompasses a love not for 'thrusting away in the back stall of the womens bathroom, but for the other things... the author put it quite well in my opinion, "What I love in them is something that moves and must be free to do so. I love their smells, their textures, their complexities, the inexhaustible variety of their psychic weather patterns. I love to flirt with them, dance with them, and to discourse with them endlessly on the differences between men and women. I love to make love." if you'll notice... 'making love' is last on the list. i feel the same way. i hold true that there is nothing wrong with 'loving many women' as long as, and we all seem to agree, the women that are being loved, are also not being mislead, which is something the author makes a note to stray from. i applaud.
Thank you. Really. The desire for connection is natural and not always linear. There is a balance...and this is tricky territory but honesty with yourself can only benefit those around you. I hope. This article takes away all the double speak which comes like an automated response in the male brain. Mucho, mucho gracias.
My thoughts as well :>>>>I don't think of beauty as being something that is part of a woman, but rather something like a mist that gathers around her that becomes more beautiful if illuminated brightly from within. The real beauty, the part that lasts, is in the soul and not the skin.<<<<
!*!*!*!*!*!*!*! APPLAUSE ! Your prose is delightful and insights parallel my own. There is no shame in loving many when "using" is not in the vocabulary of the relationship. Passion truly shared ignites the light that casts no shadow~'aurora sensualis'~ a term I coined when I found the light as well. Monogamy certainly has no monopoly there since "together" is purely mental.
Thank you
Thank you
It was a beautifully written piece, but honestly, I have to say the following. I am aware that this is very personal, but this is what the writing pulled out of me: As a woman who is not considered beautiful, it was difficult to read this. There are so many women who have such beauty and passion inside them, and it is ignored because men do not like the package. I cannot tell you the number of male friends I have had that I have adored while watching them complain about the bad treatment they get from women. And yet they continue to seek that beauty you write about. I know that you wrote about inner beauty, but that doesn't mean you truly can see it. You're missing something; you've probably already missed out on so much. You could've known so many amazing women. I mean, really known them... the part they show only to lovers. Some of the strongest and most passionate attractions and relationships have happened between people who never thought they could be attracted to the other person. But it is something that grows as you slowly discover another person's hidden strength and wisdom. I am surrounded by men who claim, like yourself, to worship women. But you don't. You worship something on the outside. Yes, beauty is holy and the experience of it can be spiritual. But learn to see beauty in everything around you. It makes me ache inside when I meet amazing, fascinating, and soulful men who talk about women with that reverence because I know it is still reserved for women who can appeal to their eyes. I am slowly losing my faith in men and it is sad because I am a good person, and I have a lot to give, but as long as men continue to put physical beauty on its current pedastal, there will be no one to give it to. Until you can find what is lovely within women who don't inspire your lust, you don't truly worship us.
BLESS YOU!!!
I thought I was alone in my own private hell.
Everybody is different but we are all the same.
The only problem is that there are too few females of this pursuasion:(
But, heck. Can't have it all.
BTW, here is the formula for eternal youth.
"I am on the handsome side of 50"
arne
I have enjoyed reading the various responses to this extremely well-written and poignant piece by Mr. Barlow. Mr. Barlow, you are indeed a gifted writer who has limned a dilemma facing many sentient beings, of both sexes.
I am a forty-two year old male who has not quite evolved to your level, i.e., I am involved in several relationships with each woman unknown to each other. I hope to gain the strength and courage to reach your level of honesty and wear my lechery proudly and leave it up to the woman's discretion as to whether she wants to enter a relationship with me knowing I am involved with others.
In my view, monogamy is advantageous from a woman's perspective, and certainly American society could not flourish, so to speak, if all we men ran around practicing polyamory. It is in the interests of our society, and many others, for a man and woman to bond together so that we may perpetuate the species, our ultimate biologic aim, insofar as we have one. Yet if there is a creator, another debatable issue, He or She must have a wicked sense of humor, for this creator or the gods or whomever has hardwired men to crave many women, and indeed it is in OUR biologic, evolutionary interest to promulgate our seed into as many women as possible. It is also just plain fun!
I say that last statement with many caveats. Obviously, several posters have gotten deeply hurt by lecherous rakes and roues such as you and I, because they have been captivated by our words and numen-like energy. One must walk a fine line when living such a lifestyle and while I am not a card-carrying member of a polyamory community, I note in reading various web sites that even enlightened polyamorous couples experience friction and fractiousness in their relationships due to jealousy.
As to the poster who talked about beauty and the fact that she is not a glamourous woman and has been hurt by the many soulful men who have failed to look past her plain exterior to the great soul within, I sympathize with you. As a man who more closely resembles Hoss Cartwright (Dan Blocker) than Brad Pitt, I, too, have been cruelly rejected by countless women who failed to look beneath the surface. On the other side of the coin, when it comes to just plain opportunity for sex, it has been my considered experience, based on far too many nights in single bar meat markets, that even the fattest, ugliest woman can usually find a sex partner before the evening is over. Conversely, an average looking man, such as I, can haunt these pick up palaces for years without the slightest hope of a sexual encounter.
For you, my dear woman, I would suggest that at least part of the issue is how you present yourself. No one is attracted to someone who derogates themself. You should do what you can to accentuate what outside beauty you have, e.g., if overweight, join a gym and start working out, etc. and meanwhile work on overhauling your attitude so that you convey an air of sexuality. I'm going to get into trouble with some of you here, no doubt, by generalizing that men are more visual than women and that ladies of great pulchritude are venerated by most males. But I personally have known and dated many women who were NOT ravaging beauties but they possessed deep wisdom and intelligence and innate goodness--women such as you. And as the great Sung Dynasty Chinese poet Su Tung Po once said,
"the weakest wine is better than warm water;
an ugly wife and a quarrelsome concubine
is better than no woman at all."
My personal philosophy is to walk through this life without hurting anyone, and like Mr. Barlow, I am an unregenerate lecher who intends to have sexual congress with as many women as possible during the short span of my years on this planet. How do I plan to reconcile this? Email me at to find out, lol
Wow!!! This was an amazing article for me. I'm involved with one of this man's kind and it is simply the most astoundingly real and exciting relationship I've ever encountered. This is the way of a "new world order" of human sexual and emotional bonding and if more people could explore this type of lifestyle the world would be so much better off!! I had begun to feel some confusion regarding the need to be "special" and now I have much better understanding of how it really is possible for us to be special to each other at the same time "allowing" him (and myself!) to explore other realms and all of the various pleasures that life has to offer. Love does not require fidelity to be a real and rewarding experience. I'm so pleased to hear that others are expanding the meaning of Love. I can't wait to share this article with man of my dreams!! Thanks...
Poly has a long way to go before being accepted. I notice that most of the criticisms aren't so much about things you actually expressed as they are warped interpretations based on emotional reactions to women's past relationships. There also seems to be a lot of generally negative attitudes toward sex floating around out there. How could someone, in good conscience, call you a sleazeball? What, specifically was sleazy about your behavior? You didn't lie to anybody. You didn't mislead anybody. You didn't rape, rob, or pillage. And you said at the very beginning that most of these relationships weren't even sexual. So what's with the big hairy emotional reactions? When I hear a woman lashing out at you for this article, what I'm really hearing is her visualizing herself as your lover and thinking, "If I don't have his undivided attention at every waking moment, I have nothing. *I* am nothing! If you look at her you might like her better, and then you'll leave or you'll treat her better. Then I'll be all alone!" These gals just don't get it--and it's not specific to women. These reactions sound like they're based on abandonment issues and sibling rivalry. Those of you who took umbrage with Mr. Barlow's words, look in the mirror and repeat after me: Sex is nice. Sex feels good and brings people closer together. I deserve to have sex with any willing partner I want. Sex is pleasurable and pleasure is good for me. Pleasure brightens my mood and makes me more open to other people with whom I can share this pleasure. I own my body, and everybody else owns their own body. We can do what we want with our own bodies as long as we don't hurt anybody. Just 'cause daddy/mommy loves sis/bub doesn't mean s/he doesn't love ME TOO!" Mr. Barlow, perhaps you'd catch a lot less flak if you made it clear to everyone that your lovers have the same liberties that you do. If you tried to restrict them, and tell them that they had to be monogamous while you didn't, that would be a different story. But that's not the case, right? (BTW, Mercuria speaks fondly of you. I saw Morning Glory's name up there in the comments too, so you must be pretty decent. :) ). Very well written. Thanks for giving voice to the spirit of polyamory.
Expressed well - exactly like myself, 'cept I'm still married; 33 yrs. Our persona appear identical, though you are able to express yourself so much better.
The people that don't like what you wrote are the people who think you are lying. Love is infinite. Attention and time are limited. There lies the contradiction. On the whole, I share your views. I am female, 29, and happily (oh so happily) have discovered how to be honest with my many lovers -- to tell them as much as they are capable of hearing about each other, and to tell them as much as I can put into words about why I like them for themselves. Also how to ask for what I want in bed. I've met 40-somethings who are just figuring out that last bit, and I feel a little bad for them.
Anyway, thanks for a good piece of personal writing.
I am your female counterpart. It scares me. I can't believe you wrote that. It is so true and beautiful. I just wish my men could be so understanding as your women are.
I just got sent the link to this article, and for good reason. I can really relate to the desire to not only be with many people, but also the knowlege that I care about them all in special and meaningful ways. I know that often men think that there are not too many women of this persuasion. I think the same goes for men. I haven't been able to find many people who can be open. Of course the key to the whole thing is the honesty. Kudos.
Priapically?? Pulchritude??? Man, this guy is edyoukated! And, yes, I thoroughly enjoyed reading his essay. Interesting, informative and honest to da bone(r).
Especially liked his reference to and association between steel and rod. And Offshore drilling (a new expression to my ears) brought a smile. But my eyes really turned dreamy when I read of his unending devotion towards loving and lusting over all that we are.
Had to revisit this composition a couple of times before forwarding it on to a couple of my more receptive male friends!
this is a beautiful article and sentiment. thank you for putting it online Hooksexup. thank you for writing it writer.
Apart from the fact that I have different plumbing, I agree with nearly every word of what Barlow wrote, and it accurately reflects my own experiences. I have found, however, that a man who is not conventionally good looking becomes beautiful to me if he is in part animated by a desire to please me by acknowledging my intelligence in the same breath as his own lust.
I agree with the last paragraph too. I have a daughter, and it's hard to tell the difference, when you're young, between a man who loves women and a fucking user. But she's thirteen now, and if I don't sit down and have 'that' conversation with her, she may find this out the hard way.
I feel the same and have acted the same for years, now am 'trying again the monogamy route w/ the partner who was wounded by the lack of feeling special & the deceit. thanks for taking time to write and publish your words for those of us who are 'that way' too. maybe people in sex addiction recovery groups should read them for a alt. perspective
I'm still mulling over that damn Hooksexup article: "A Ladies' Man and Shameless." Yes, it irritates me. His words, his tone, his asshole opinions. What would he and you expect of a woman's reaction? He feigns "worship of women" and "love of love." What the fuck does he know of a woman's feelings? He just wants to fuck. He takes a position (or, in his case, many) but is not willing or able to take responsibility for his actions and the inevitable human response garnered -- if unintentionally -- from his women lovers. Yes, women want to feel special and he argues that every relationship is. It seems to me -- and I can see this image vividly in my mind -- that he fucks at arm's length. Insert dick, but don't go near my heart. Perhaps women attach more meaning (relationally speaking) to lovemaking than men. If we are merely conquests, we might as well devolve into non-reasoning and non-feeling beings who copulate merely to procreate. Like a dog on all fours, just call me a bitch.
My last lover was very much like you, Barlow. He loved women, so innocently and so soulfully, that I loved him for it. I would never have dreamed of asking him not to see other women.
One difference is that he didn't seem to think it was possible to live fully as he wished and also be happy. He said that he and many men he knew wished to live deliriously nonmonogamous lives, but their wives (he's 51, so most of his friends are married, though he is single) wouldn't hear of it. Not that any of them had communicated their desires honestly. They were too afraid. When I asked him, "Why, if this is so important, DON'T you just be honest and live with the consequences. As you say, quite accurately, most women hate dishonesty more than infidelity.
His reply was that none of the men could abide their wives living similarly adventurous lives. Judging from his reaction to my honesty about being nonmonogamous, I'd say he shared this difficulty.
Barlow, if this email reaches you, how do you deal with the sexual freedom of the women you're involved with? I happen to think that even if women are nonmonogamous, they tend to have fewer lovers than men who are nomonogamous--simply because of the way we're wired, but I presume the women who do accept the "challenge" of being with you must be a bit unconventional. Are you fine with it or do you have to do deep breathing exercises feel comfortable with them seeing other men?
Just curious. Thanks for the wonderful article. I sent it to my ex.
Liz Randolph,
Such a smart confession. Brilliant lunatic candor.
I am proud to admit that this is the kind of man I love
to relate to. The only reason for fidelity is , as he points out , "being in love". And yes, like he does, I'd want my daughter to encounter a man like him, because "I do want her to be brave in her love". Touche.
I'd love to read some of his thoughts on pot smoking, another area where society tends to be highly hypocritical.
Yow.
Very well put. I'm just ending a marriage for many of the same reasons (17 years of matrimony - I'd almost forgotten how to do the laundry).
And what I found most interesting was your discussion of the inner lesbian. An odd way to put it, but remarkably sympatico with some of my thoughts on this matter.
So best of luck to you, and thanks for the well written essay. I'm glad to know there is hope for the future, what with I've got a couple of years left before 40.
Scott Hampton
Speechless...Through tears of joy I write to say at half his age, most of all he had to say, is easy enough to know and understand (from experience, beleive it or not)It's not just about the sex and what you may get out of it, it's so much deeper than that - and who or what you may be able to remember and enjoy because of your experiences with another (or the lack thereof)..That is something i can definately see living by..and the fact that i 'm a girl with much the same philosophy..boys,girls,black,white,grey,nice,mean,and in between...I love people...Everyone is special..and even if it is just one thing that makes you decide, or a fling you're trying not hide..it can always take you to "that place" wheter it be one of worship or self-discovery it is a place you never forget...even when you've moved on and it's someone else's turn...(You) are fucking incredible..No pun intended.OK- pun intended.
My initial response only fueled me to say more. I can't for the life of me get the question "Why when women do it they are sluts?" out of my head.
I am a woman and am certainly not a slut for having so many lovers..even if they are sometimes all at the same time.It pains me only to know that I can't have all the ones I want.And that some of the ones you want may be the very ones calling you a slut behind your back...Sometimes too it is the ones who want you that think you are a slut. I myself have written countless "manifestos", if you will, on how and why to have all the love and sex you crave and even more so,all you crave to give..My mind is swimming in circles on where to begin.
Being in-love and monogamy must come naturally..I see that you said this, but what is funny, is that it was said to me while "making love" to someone I was in a monogomous relationship with.And it was at that point,I was forced to flee faster than my tired little feet could run to keep up with my heart. Yes my heart left first..I have been afraid for a long time that I was one of those addicts..Or that I was destined to spend the rest of my life alone..as in single..
Now I realize I am one of you lucky few who are okay with as much love /sex of and with people you can stand to handle.I think I sound like a selfish slut at times because at times I really am just being a 26 yr old curious, fearless, bisexual stripper who loves being wanted and loves to want..and admittedly can be quite the slut..but am learning it can be good for the fantasies of all the "dirty-talkers" I end up tangled with, not to mention good for business.Sometimes it is just about getting off- that is one I can admit, along with everything else- and yes I have no shame either.If you can't see me coming for miles around and know exactly why I am coming then you won't be cumming with me. I have never hesitated to be as honest as i can be without hurting someone else, or hurting me.. So any of you who feel you must lecture about your "feelings" can put away the podium, step down off of your box,and get in line ,because I have a feeling you just might like it,too-this diving into what you see as sin!!!I am not out to get "you", with some malicious, secret tactics that you will be unaware of. I think as long as people can look in the mirror and tell themselves what they are doing , and why (and still be looking in the mirror when done)it should be easy enough to repeat to thier partner. Then no one can be held accountable for any misgivings or shortcomings.Whether it be for "the" night, tonight, or all of the nights you hope for..that,RWILL36617&@aol- is how....Sure there will many who will look at you and shudder to think that you just bluntly,(bravely)selfishly,(honestly)told him or her what you want.I let them know I can be your friend and fuck you once or forever..butI am still your "friend". Friends love..Friends are sometimes soulmates..They sometimes like you and sometimes don't-but they always love you the same and a true friend NEVER lies because they don't have to.I Don't Have to Lie- is what I tell myself..And it's not so that I come to believe it. It is a reminder that I have already told him/her that and any hurt feelings are theirs..not mine they are holding.It maybe unbelievable to some but it really is possible to love so many for sooo many reasons..
I remember questioning "WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH ME?" and cying at why..Now I think I know..And with time age and wisdom it may change, but, for now..when "the enchantment is over, the spell remains.."(quote from song- not mine)
I have struggled for too long after a 7yr relationship and a child how to be happy in confinement...I struggle no more since alone, and never sadly lonely..I get to feel the real feelings of lonliness and know that it's up to me to be happy alone.Then I get to explore the possibilities of having someone feed me something, another cannot.Only to wonder what the next one holds up on display,as his/her offering to me - so unyeilding.(and unafraid to show everybody how much I want it.)I always feel like I know what I'm doing when I am doing it.Whether I am really "getting it" or just getting it on..You have called it loving someone, and that "in-love" is closer to monogamy..mabe not worded or meant that way.(my interpretation.)I think that out of your entire essay is the only place we dissagree. I Have felt crazy for so long when I say that I am in-love with somebody and then two weeks later in-love with somebody else. But I'm beginning to realize maybe it is possible.I think I may also just be in love with the art of loving...I sometimes feel both for them but I never feel like one is a large enough part of me that I might need him/her to complete me monogomously..and I certainly don't feel like I should be taking this one wonderful creature away from the rest of you.The only way they belong to me is where I beleive them to be or dream them to be in my heart and head.Who is it I miss today? is not a question regarding the lovers it's one regarding the many "me's" and it makes me wonder who I might belong with that day..
In Nov. of 01 this was me doubting myself:
Aside from all that's the matter there are matter's of the head, not the heart.I can't get over all the ones I love and miss.The belief I have conjured up - that I can be open, happy with it, have fun,and still love(or love for the moment)- is blowing my mind and aching elsewhere.Seems I find it too simple to have these trysts, and keep my head above water, not just treading.To appreciate the pleasure, without guilt and say it's all just experience and experience is good..would be even more thrilling.There is one and then another.Sometimes one niether better, or worse than the other..Other times too much alike..and it's a good thing these comparisons.Why is it one's eyes can convince you..One's words can affix you.A mind that takes on the shape of hands to hold you there..Attraction like magic and excitement entertains.Being set free is the only longing equal to the desire.May just be instant gratification I'm after and then there may be real longing for satisfaction.But it surprises me how few and far between they really are separate.Two different things, I believe, but holding each other's hand more often than I would've expected.
And then there is the societal boundaries that are far too conventional and tell me to stand up and say..Hi, my name is Michelle and I am an addict...because I can't have just one..Am I crazy and in real trouble or do i need to finally say I know my reason's why and AM satisfied..
Not sure yet what made me feel otherwise since then, but I know who..And as mad as I was about his over-controlling, posessiveness(couldn't even look at other people),Today I am Thanking him...Thanks again to "asshole"...Everybody else..Look out world because here I cum.....So many people, SO LITTLE TIME!!
And to you hooksexup.com and JP THANKS for letting me ramble on. Like a tool to put my own beliefs into perspective, and not turned into unanswered questions, has been refreshing..Didn't mean to use (you) for such..But,again THANK YOU, THANK [email protected]
As a 46 year old deadhead, it is great to come across an article by an established hero. Liked also the reference to Blake. JP could also have quoted 'The road to excess leads to the palace of wisdom', or 'He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence', 'Brothels are built with the bricks of religion', The nakedness of woman is the work of God', 'The soul of sweet delight can never be defiled',etc. But it's pertinent to recall that Blake remained in a very happy and rewarding monogamous relationship in spite of apparently broaching the suggestion that they open the marriage, at one stage.
I also was very moved by this honest and well written piece. I'm a man and have been in a strong relationship for 25 years and have two teenage children. I too love the company of women. Some while ago I had the strong feeling that as well as talking and joking with women, I needed to satisfy a craving for physical intimacy. When I focussed on this though, it struck me that I had no desire for sexual intercourse with others. That would have felt like a betrayal of the deep spiritual bond I share with my partner. Instead, dear reader, I took up Latin American dancing [in which my partner has no interest] and I discovered a whole new way of playing and getting close to others [of all ages, and types] whilst not impinging on my own marriage. Luckily neither my partner nor I suffer from the entrapment of the green devil of jealousy and we are able and always have been able to give each other a lot of freedom. Perhaps it was this factor that stopped our relationship from ever getting really stale. It reminds me of some reseach in Italy which purportedly found that men who flirt have much stronger relationships with their own partners that those who don't.
Thanks for a great article JP.
It's not just men who feel this way. The only part that isn't completely aligned with my general attitude is that I can find spice with men who are not "beautiful."
My husband is a wonderful man. We've been married 16 years and have two wonderful children. I see so much of him reflected in what you wrote and I love what you wrote. I was crying by half way through. It's so simple the way you explained it. If this is how my husband has felt (and I suspect it is)I'll end up crying some more. Losing him would be hard but staying with him if he feels this way would be the worst violation imaginable. It's not about me, it never has been. Thank you so much.
In 130 countries around the world, each piece of Omega was sold by first-class dealers is the young generation's ideal Omega Watches in modern times.as well as pursue the Omega Watches sale . In American, cheap Omega Watches is the most popular and dicount Omega Watches and the best Omega replica Watches. The combination of Omega Watch and the Omega Watch sale make Fake cheap Omega Watch the leader in the watchesindustry. dicount Omega Watch in moden times is very popular and Omega replica Watch must give you a new life!
What I'd like to know is at almost a decade later... where are you at with this lifestyle now? Does it still hold the same allure, or you veering more toward a parody of Californication?
Another MLC loser who couldn't keep it in his pants.
*Yawn*
Not living together has its definite advantages. Familiarity breeds...well, maybe not contempt, but, well...familiarity. As in brother-like. The opposite of novelty. No one is interesting 24 hours a day. Get together for fun, then go home. This from a woman's standpoint, guys. Took me years to figure out. Works great!
I generally agree with what Mr. Barlow writes, and would like to practice non-monogamy myself. However, there are a couple of issues: what does Mr. Barlow do when his female partner gets pregnant from him, and has he acquired or passed on any sexually transmitted disease from his non-monogamy?
gorgeous... loooved this piece ....love you and your don juan ways.. xoxo
You are writing so fresh and clear how I feel, that's so fascinating! Thank you for sharing such a beautiful piece!
Honestly if someone made me as unhappy as you say you made other people feel, I'd want them stricken from my life. What comes naturally is not always whats good for us.
And honestly, its annoying to hear men complain that they are the only ones stricken with the desire to "sleep" around. Marriage is a man made construct to make sure all her children are his. But women sneak around just as much. How would you have felt if the love of your life had a child turned out not to be yours? Nature and what comes naturally can be very cruel. All your article really says is that sexually, you are obese.
As a woman with two husbands... the desire to love (not just fuck, interestingly I cannot orgasm easily with someone I don't care about, and the more I love them the more outrageously multiply orgasmic I become) more than one person is not just a masculine trait. It takes a lot more bravery to admit it if you're a woman, that's all. Even though I'm married to both of my men I still wonder, still fantasize, and still think about it. I love men the way Barlow loves women. I love women differently, for me I can only have sex with women if it's fucking- if there's an emotional connection there I can't go there, if it's physical, meet-at-a-party, wham, bam, thank you ma'am, I can (and do) enjoy a lot of women.
Women like me exist. Expect to find us more as pudgy nerds than super-hot 20 year old models.
As with everything, there are two sides. A friend who knows him and his family personally said that he was essentially an absentee father who only now has begun to have a relationship with his grown daughters. "Charming, except if you were a relative....then he was a disaster.", was one phrase she used. The rest of her observations described a somewhat sad man who did too many drugs while following the Dead on tour and is depressed a lot of the time. Her opinion...."following his example when it comes to relationships is probably not that advisable..." Just wanted to throw that in there. I relate to much of what he wrote, but the reality of it is likely nowhere near as poetic.
Yeah, Blackfish, nice of you to throw some undocumented personal hearsay into the public discussion. Very useful.
Yes, sure, I like it, Interesting and educational. Please continue to write more interesting post in your website.
Mr. Barlow, I have to commend you. You are so good at rationalizing your womanizing strategies to the public! Poetic. My favorite section is "The Infinity of Love" in which you detail the bullshit lines you use to convince the ladies on the edge about your sexual promiscuity to fuck and/or become emotionally involved with you. You tell them that every relationship is special and unique... creating this false exclusivity that you know will make them feel special, unique and safe, regardless of whether or not it is real. This is a lie. A lie that you've perfected into some florid, premeditated "mental tape." Relationships are unique, sure. You form each one with a genetically unique individual, but the behavioral patterns are the same. The feelings are the same. You're not stimulated any differently. J.P., it's all dopamine! You don't love these women. If you did, you would make an effort to understand what motivates them and not use that information to get them between the sheets. Just be "honest" about it. You like fucking a lot of different women. Don't wrap that desire in verbose sentences that reference kittens, waterfalls and rainbows. Thanks.
just a piece of sweet oldschool decadency, but some words are fine
but i'm so unhappy, after many years i found i'm not in type of stargirl i love
Hmmm..."You like fucking a lot of different women. Don't wrap that desire in verbose sentences that reference kittens, waterfalls and rainbows. Thanks."
I feel the same way about those people who romanticize monogamy and try to shove THAT down the rest of our throats with visions of "twin flames" and the like.
Best regards from the my faterland, great germany.
"At the same time,
there are beautiful souls within bodies that are the female equivalent of my own, and while some of
these are close friends, they lack the sexual spice that really fuels most discourse between the
sexes. [...]
one great thing about
being a woman is that if you can come at all -- which a lamentably high percentage cannot -- you can
usually come a lot and in a variety of ways. [...]
All said, you're probably wondering why any woman would want to become emotionally or physically
involved with a man whose promiscuity is so freely confessed."
No. Actually, what I *am* wondering is why any woman would want to become emotionally or physically
involved with an ugly man who cannot even make her come.
Could it be that female masochism is real after all?
How much visitors agreed with you?
Lol and Lol!
The only thing that mitigates your behaviour is the fact that you have the courage to be HONEST with your women in letting them know that there are others. For that I appluad you. I know one too many men who would love to do what you do but do not have the COURAGE to be open and honest about their intentions. These cads deserve to have their penises glued to their foreheads.
Add a Comment