Emotional versus Physical Monogamy

It seems to be a novice mistake in gay relationships to equate emotional monogamy with physical monogamy. So, what makes me say that? I am just some jaded old homo? Perhaps. But more likely, I have just gained maturity and experience allowing me to appreciate the difference in a relationship between emotional monogamy and physical monogamy.

I started thinking about this whilst chatting with a nice young man, who'd chatted me up on one of the websites/apps I use for social purposes. A newbie to Seattle, he spied me in my Dress Whites (you know, the ones in the old war movies with the high collars that look like they are making the wearer chock) in a profile picture. As a former sailor, he thought it would be nice to chat up an old man of the sea. His move to Seattle had been precipitated by the end of his active service and his interest in moving here to be with the 'Daddy' he'd fallen in love with, having met him on Daddyhunt several years ago. As such interactions often go, we talked about our current and past romantic lives, interests etc. At one point, I am not sure who brought it up, he mentioned that he'd 'required' monogamy from his Daddy as he couldn't 'accept anything else.' He'd mentioned that this was his first serious relationship and one of a very in which his older partner had been involved. In almost every relationship, as it becomes serious, one or the other partner brings the subject up. Usually the one who does it, is the one with the least amount of experience.

On a recent episode of, "One girl, Five gays" there was an exchange between two of the participants. One of the 'older' guys (on that show, 30 is considered old, sigh) made a comment about how silly it was that youngest of the guys believes in monogamy, calling the youngster, 'stupid' for believing in such. There was a tense exchange, then an apology, yada, yada, yada. I think that this miscommunication occurred because one guy was thinking of 'emotional monogamy' and the other was thinking about 'physical monogamy.' Is there a difference? Yes, I believe there is.

The book, "Michael Tolliver Lives", by Armistead Maupin, is the story of an older/younger male romantic relationship. In the story, the older character stumbles across the younger character's profile on, "DaddyHunt" and is smitten. As luck would have it, they end up meeting 'cute' (as they say in the movie business) and a relationship develops. In the story it is the younger of the two major characters, "Ben", the 'boy' who brings it up with Michael, the 'Daddy.' He begins by saying something along the lines of, 'you know I don't think it is every possible for guys to be monogamous..." Michael's response, "Ben, you are too young to be monogamous, I am too old." As an older dude, I get what Michael means. I think it takes some maturity and experience to understand this.

Okay, as I've said before, I believe that monogamy is an important, 'stage' in a relationship. I just no longer believe it should be a permanent 'state' in one, especially in inter-generational relationships. So, what makes me think this: experience.

When I was dating the longest term of my ex's (you know, the one I write about who dumped me for a simple, fat, nelly, skeez while I was away at the war and who lives 80 feet away from my little house near the big lake), at one point we decided for many reasons (he was a virgin when we met; I was going to be away at the war for an extended period; I am only a Top, him having Top urges he needed to express, etc.) that we'd have an open relationship. As many couples who end up getting to this point often do, we decided we needed to establish some ground rules: no over nights; no 'dating', just hook ups; no f*cking in the bed which we shared, and so on and so forth). These all seemed like reasonable ground rules. The problem: he wasn't able to abide by any of these guidelines. He ended up 'accidentally' spending the night with the skeez. That led to dating the skeez, and then worst of all, f*cking the skeez in the bed we shared. When I found out all of this stuff had happened, it wasn't the physical cheating which bugged me. It was the emotional cheating that did. I mean, I'd been away at the war and had gotten laid many times myself. I spent, for example, many, MANY, long, enjoyable hours being serviced by a sexy, Hapa surfer boy. Trust me, the sex was mind-blowing. Anyway, no matter how good the sex was (and boy was it good, have I mentioned that), there was no 'emotional' line crossed. Sure we were friends, I think we still are. But it was clear that is all we were. Am I glad we became friends? Yes. Was the sex great? Absolutely! Was there an emotional attachment beyond the original 'boy crush' and then lingering friendship? No. He knew were just friends, I knew we were just friends, and that was fine with us both.

So, what was the difference? I believe it was that I had the experience to know the difference between being 'emotionally monogamous' and being physical monogamous', and he, my ex, didn't. At some point he crossed a line, for whatever reason, justifying his behavior to himself. Unfortunately, to the point of spending time with me upon my return from the war hunting for $800K water front property, while at the same time telling the skeez he was in love with him and planning on dumping me. But that is the topic for a different article.

With my most recent young man, we approached monogamy differently. For a variety of reasons we never 'declared' monogamy. And, having not done so, we never had to have the 'open or closed' relationship talk. Did we talk, in general, about making sure to be safe, if we did play? Yes. Were we discrete when we were first casually dating and playing happened, so as not to rub it in the face of the other? Yes. I believe we were able to do this because we'd both been in relationships before and we'd experienced how the 'restriction' of monogamy often leads to 'cheating'. Did I like it knowing he might sleep with someone else? No. Trust me, the thought made me want to throw up. I hate to admit it, but it still does, even after all this time (he moved across the country in August). Did he like it when I did it? No, not really. But, by not placing a restriction on such behavior, it freed us to chose to be monogamous, or mostly so. I don't believe he slept with anyone else for the last two years we were together, perhaps even longer. I didn't sleep with anybody else, with one notable exception, during that same period. And he knew about that one exception and, if not giving me his blessing, at least his understanding.

I think that too many relationships are damaged by demanding the expectation of monogamy, without understanding what that word means, or that there are variations on this theme. Granted, I am not dating anybody now, nor do I expect to any time soon, but if I do, I hope we can find a way to agree on this issue. I hope that we will both be able to discuss this topic, tell the difference between emotional and physical monogamy, and come to a reasonable agreement.

At least, that is what This Daddy thinks.

Tim Kasher - Monogamy

Uploaded by mattmmm123 on Dec 1, 2008

Live at the Troubadour, November 30, 2008

The Lessons of Love

How bleak was my spinsterhood...Okay, sorry, old gay dud reference many of you won't get. Let's start again. As I experience the sun setting on my romantic life, I find myself reliving both the romantic and non-romantic relationships which have had a major impact on me. I think about this with an eye on what things did I learn, what habits did I develop, what things did I learn to avoid, and how these things stay with me.

From DMH, my first love: I learned to love, 'Car Talk' and other NPR programing. I also learned that a bowl of ice cream is best eaten covered in milk. Try it, you'll see. I still use the same brand of face soap (Neutrogena) every day that I first used in his shower. I wouldn't use anything else.

From DG, my first 'bromance', trust me, the guy couldn't be any straighter than if he tried. I knew it from the minute we met, didn't matter in the least. I liked him, he liked me, my gayness, his straightness, not a big deal: Our friendship uncovered in me an appreciation for sports and a desire to be someones 'big brother.' I still sometimes refer to him as my 'little brother' and he refers to me when talking to his children as, 'Uncle.'

From MF, a long-time military buddy who, like DG is totally straight, but who had a major impact on my life: He taught me, after years of not believing it possible, that I love a good beer and a good baseball game.

From MRN, my first obsessive love (we all have one or two of those, admit it, you have had at least one yourself, gentle reader): I formed an interest in being 'green' and found I liked wearing Birkenstocks. Okay, so the Birkenstock thing didn't last that long, but still...as dorky as they may look, they are quite comfortable, now aren't they?

From DSL, my first re-bound love: I acquired an appreciation for masculinity outside what is considered, the norm; a taste for Mormon boys; and, a mild addiction to doing crossword puzzles. I also learned that, as the old saying goes, 'Ex sex is the best sex.'

From CSH, my first, 'apprentice' (he was using me to practice on, before moving on to someone younger and better looking) love: From Craig I learned that innocence is sexy; that nerd boys can also be total horndogs; and, that sometimes not being able to get it up is okay.

From PFH (or as I think of him - Bad Paul), my first not-real love, no matter how hard it was we tried to convince ourselves it was: I learned to never, EVER date someone who lies. With him I developed an appreciation for rimming (both giving and receiving, but most especially giving...).

From PFG (or as I think of him - Badder Paul, the one who dumped me after 10 years for the fat, grey-haired, borderline simple, nelly skeez he'd been shtupping while I was away at the War), who lives 80 feet away where I do in the little house next to the big lake which I share with my spoiled, and completely insane border collie: Our time together generated for me a love for a good hardware store, an appreciate of cars which are less than 12 feet long or are powered by motors of less that 1200 ccs, and confirmed that a man who can cook (and enjoys doing it) is a prize. I also learned that dating a virgin is always, ALWAYS a terrible idea and that even a man of high morals and values cheats.

From BD, my first long term, semi-regular F*buddy: I realized as never before that I love being called 'daddy' during certain of the most intimate acts involving two consenting male adults. I also learned that sometimes you can be intimate with someone (you can share secrets, support each other, talk about your lives, make an impact), even if you only fuck them once every few months or even every couple of years and that satisfaction can be earned from such an arrangement.

From SKA, my second long term, semi-regular F*buddy: I uncovered the fact that you really can just lay back and let someone else to 'all the work'; than you can have 'intimate', totally satisfying, mind-blowing sex, that lasts, and lasts, and lasts, and yet doesn't involve f*cking, with a near total stranger.

From SCG, my late-in-life love: Well, from him, I am still learning. We may not be together anymore, but that doesn't mean I don't ponder, value, and appreciate the time that we spent together. Sam taught me that, while attraction and sex are important (and boy was the sex good) and required in a romantic relationship, being 'gotten' by the person you love is what is most important. Being with him made me want to be a better 'me' than I thought I could be. That 'me' may not be anything special, I mean, being a better 'me' didn't make me a saint or anything, but learning that someone shouldn't love you 'in spite' of who you are (as had DMH and PFG) but rather for who you are is what works best and makes for a healthier relationship.

In ways romantic, unromantic, brotherly, paternal, obsessive, or even needy, each of the fellows above I have loved and still do love in one way or another. Some I'll never see again. Some will be glad of that fact, I am sure. Still, I love them for the impacts, both good and not so good, they had upon me and I believe that these impacts make me a better person.

At least, that is what This Daddy thinks.

Lesson Learned-Marianne Khattar

How Can You Tell the Bear Community from the Lesbian Community?

Sounds like the start of an old joke, doesn't it? You know, "A Bear and a Lesbian walk into a bar..." It isn't. Sometimes, to be blunt, I am not not sure I can tell the difference the Bear and Lesbian Communities. Can you?

Both are communities full of folks who feel marginalized by mainstream culture. The Lesbian Community rails against the patriarchy and the unrealistic stereotypes of female beauty foisted upon women by society. The Bear Community rails against the stereotype of the hip, young gay boy who is skinny, smooth, pretty, and shallow.

Each proclaims to be 'healthier' and less shallow than the mainstream, yet woe-be-tide anyone who doesn't fall in line with the accepted dogma or orthodoxy.

Both give credence to style over substance, it is okay to be a Nelly bear or a femme lesbian, as long as one wears the required cowboy/combat/construction boots; denim; flannel; etc.

Both focus on looks or behaviors that often thought to be hyper-masculine, or appear to those 'outside' to be a caricature of masculinity.

Both insist they celebrate their member's uniqueness and espouse an appreciation for individuality, and acceptance, while at the same time requiring a 'uniform' or look of sorts.

Both claim to be inclusive, but aren't. If one doesn't live up to certain preconceived notions (such as Bear must only like Bear or big is beautiful), accept a fellowship of thought or action, one is considered a heretic and therefore ostracized.

Both, in an effort to be a 'welcoming', safe place, for those marginalized by 'regular' society, marginalize others in ways just as hurtful and extreme.

Both are overly sensitive to any criticism or questioning of their beliefs or behaviors.

In both the Bear and Lesbian Communities, unlike in 'regular' gay culture, it is a badge of honor to have a partner who represents the opposite of what is considered, 'beautiful' in the mainstream.

I know that it is human quality to seek to be 'unique.' I know that humans feel better by being with 'like', and excluding the 'unlike.' But wouldn't we all be happier if we all did a better job of living and let live?

At least, that is what THIS DADDY thinks.

Uploaded by kimpossible6 on May 23, 2007

Uploaded by JGayBear on Jul 19, 2010

Top 5 Reasons To Love Gay Bears.

• Artist: Blue Horns

How Toxic is Too Toxic?

We all have them, you know who I mean, those 'friends' who proclaim to love us and to be willing to stand by us through thick and thin...yet, at every opportunity, like teenage mean girls, they denigrate us, demean us, and disrespect us. Yet, for some odd reason, we stay in these friendships. Why? Especially for those of us who've been in less than healthy romantic relationships, who've risen above those and moved onto more healthy ones, it seems odd that we'd stay in friendships that are in their own way just as unhealthy, if not more so.

I have a friend, for the purposes of this article, we'll call him, "Clark." Clark and I have been friends for eons. We met when he applied for a job at the huge university next to the big lake where I work. First let me explain that my civilian job (for those of you who don't know, I am a military reservist, so I have a military career and a civilian one all at the same time. I am also a professional actor, but that is a topic for another time.) is one in which I work with almost exclusively people of the distaff side of society, i.e., chicks. The place is lousy with them. While tasked with reviewing resumes for an open position, Clark's resume popped out like a lighthouse beacon on a foggy night. First, he was a guy. That in itself was pretty amazing, but he was also a graduate of the same obscure military language school I'd attended a couple of decades before. Wait, I thought, "here is a guy, one; and two, a guy with whom I probably have stuff in common and maybe we'd even know some folks in common. We need to bring him in for an interview." So, with a bunch of pressure on my part, we did. The chicks, as was predictable, on the search committee overruled me (how do you think the place became almost exclusive female in the first place, boys are bad, they hate them), when it came to the hiring decision, so he didn't get the job. When another, similar position opened up, in a nearby department, though, I was able to slip his resume to the hiring official. Needless to say, I pushed hard to get him in for an interview. He got the job. To thank me, he offered to take me out for a beer. From that moment on, we became fast friends.

Or so, it would appear. It is true that we hang out. We are both nerds, so we talk about movies and TV shows we like. One constant topic is obscure TV shows from the 60's and 70's that only we seem to remember. We both enjoy an good beer (though he likes really dark, nasty-tasting beers and I favor very flavorful ambers). We like to ruminate on which is the best Star Trek (show or movie); who might be the next Doctor; why the Mariners suck ass, and such. When we are in our cups, an observer might see us exchanging a lot of hugs and hear a lot of, "who's got your back, brotha" and , "I love you, man" comments. You know, the whole 'bromance' thing. We even joke, him being totally straight and me being totally gay, that we are going to start a website called, "Stags and Fags", celebrating all things related to the gay/straight male friendships we all experience. We joke that when we retire we are going to buy a bar and call it, 'The Stag and Fag' (you know, like an English pub, we are both anglophiles, after all), and make it a 'safe, welcoming' place for straight and gay dudes to hang out.

It is also true that we've supported each other through both professional crisis and various romantic relationships through the years. I can honestly say that there has been a time or two during which I'd have not survived a break up or a professional disaster, without his support and that of his (now ex) wife. In the same ways, I've been there for him. Like any friendship, it hasn't always run smoothly. We fight, we bitch to and about each other, we talk sh*t to each other, but we always end up (figuratively) kissing and making up. I feel lucky that I have a friend like this.

And yet...at what cost? Clark can also be mean, bordering on vicious, especially when he has been drinking. He can be critical, not in a constructive way, but a nasty one. Beyond the normal sh*t guys spew at each other, he makes demeaning and insulting comments about what I think (I believe in a higher power, he doesn't. I tend towards more conservative political thinking, he is a commie, pinko), how I act, and about the decisions I sometimes make. There are even times when he treats me like (and essentially says to me and others) I am stupid. Always anxious to meet and hang out with the men with whom I develop relationships and supportive when I experience a break up, he also always puts me down about my choices in romantic partners. This has been especially true when the fellow I am dating is younger than I. Younger, I mean, significantly, as was Sam, the boy I loved (well still love, though I am not supposed to anymore) who recently moved to Boston, Sam being 22 years younger than I.

Making and maintaining friendships at any age is tough. As we get older, so do our friends. They have relationships, become parents, get involved in their careers, move away, etc. At some point, no matter how close has been a relationship, that closeness is affected by these outside pressures. What we experience in being BFFs at an early age is far different than that which we experience in middle age. But some things should not change. Our friends should value us, support us, and most importantly, respect us.

There is a lot of talk in gay writings about how we, being marginalized in many ways, develop our own 'families'. We place an emphasis on developing and maintaining relationships that are not biological, but that sustain us and function as a family. I don't know about you, but I've found this effort difficult. Maybe I am just not very likable, who knows? But while others seem find making these families 'easy', I don't. I never have. I am, therefore, to my detriment, more reliant on the few friendships I do manage to make. For heaven's sake, I am still buddies with my ex of 10 years, who dumped me for a fat, nelly skeez he was f*cking while I was away at the war. While I wish things were different, they aren't. I'd like my 'friend' family life to be more like that found in the, 'Tales of the City' series, it just isn't. And that is okay. At least, it should be. Shouldn't it?

I like Clark. I do. And I really appreciate those times when he's been there for me. But, I am starting to believe that the toxicity that I must tolerate to maintain this friendship is too much. I want a friend who will do a 'reality check' on how I think and how I act. I don't need one who is nasty to me, putting me down at every opportunity. Lately, particularly in the context of my romantic life, it is not the reality checking that I am seeing, rather the nastiness.

When Clark was cheating on his wife (with whom I am also friends), with a bi-sexual, Wiccan girl, who drinks too much, is allergic to everything, has a trust fund, and is nearly young enough to be his daughter, I kept his secret, respecting his privacy as he requested. When his wife found out (from another so-called 'friend', not from me) that he was cheating, I was there offering support, not criticism. When they divorced and he needed help moving out of their house, I was there, packing stuff, shlepping boxes into the Pod, etc. Unlike many of his other friends, I was there. I opened my ears and my heart to his stories of his wife's issues. I held him when he cried. I was there being supportive when, despite him being the cheater, he kept insisting his ex-wife was being a b*tch for being less friendly than he'd hoped, since he wanted them to remain friends.

When it comes to my romantic life, though, what kind of 'support' do I get? Nada. Clark, and now his female companion (the much younger, bi-sexual, Wiccan with the trust fund, who is allergic to almost everything), whenever the topic of my romantic life comes up, very pointedly insist that the reason I am not being successful romantically at the moment is because I have unreasonable and unrealistic expectations.

Picture this...Clark is a short, dumpy, balding, color-blind, middle-aged guy with bad teeth, dirty finger nails, who drinks too much, and uses chewing tobacco. He is dating a pretty, blond girl (well, not to my taste, but I think most straight dudes would agree she is attractive), who is 15 years his junior, who owns her own home and has a trust fund. In almost any context, she could be considered out of his league. Yet, they both tag team me when the conversation turns to my dating situation, complaining my expectations are too high, because I actually expect to be attracted to the person I date. They are even more vociferous in their comments when insisting on what type I 'deserve' to date. The young lady's former husband is a tall, fat, balding guy in his 30's, sporting a bad goatee, who wears a kilt and a bowler daily. Trust me, I've met him. I mean, really. A bowler? A kilt? Sigh. Anyway, they insist that someone who looks like that (well, they give a little on the bowler and the kilt) is the sort of person to whom I should be attracted and that I should seek to date. They criticize and cavel that since I am short, stocky, hairy, and older, I am (oddly, just as do the Bears here in Seattle) therefore only allowed to date someone even shorter, hairier, fatter, and older. Alright, they probably think it was okay for the guy to be taller, but other than that, not willing to give an inch. They insist that by not being interested in or willing to date someone like that, I am being selfish, hypocritical and unrealistic, therefore damned to be alone, so I should quit complaining about being lonely.

So, let me get this straight, Clark, who to be charitable, is pretty lucky that almost any woman would find him appealing, let alone his current girlfriend, 'deserves' to date someone 'out of his league' and I don't. Clark gets to date someone for whom he has a passion, who has a passion for him, someone with whom he has much in common, and someone who makes him happy, but I don't. Really? Why is that? Does he have so little respect for me, place so little value on our friendship that he can look me in the eyes and say such a thing?

I understand that one role our friends should play is to keep us 'real'. I get it, I do. When you see a friend doing something unhealthy, dangerous, detrimental to their well being, you should take action. But I also think that our friends are supposed to hope for the best for us. They are supposed to value us, respect us, and think we are special. And, they should believe we deserve to be happy and healthy. If they don't do these things, then what kind of friends are they really? I like Clark. I do. I value him and respect him. He is smart, he works hard, and he is funny. I also want to have 'serious' friendships, with him included. But not at the cost of my self-respect. When the price a friendship is being humiliated, talked down to, insulted, demeaned, it really isn't a friendship worth nurturing.

At least, that is what THIS DADDY thinks.



Britney Spears Toxic Reprise piano + voix de Yael Naim

Is the Correct Word, "Bear" or "Boor"?

The Merriam-Webster dictionary (the online version) defines the word, "Boor" as:

Definition of BOOR
1: peasant
2: a rude or insensitive person
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/boor

Wikipedia explanation of the term, 'Bear':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_(gay_culture)

Bears are heavy-set men and are often characterized as having hairy bodies and facial hair; some are also muscular; some attempt to project an image of rugged masculinity in their grooming and appearance. Some Bears place importance on presenting a hyper masculine image and may shun interaction with, and even disdain, men who exhibit effeminacy. The Bear concept can function as an identity, an affiliation, and there is ongoing debate in bear communities about what constitutes a Bear, however a consensus exists THAT INCLUSION IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE BEAR COMMUNITY.

Bears are almost always gay or bisexual men. Increasingly, transgender or transsexual men (trans men) and those who shun labels for gender and sexuality are also included within bear communities.

Younger or smaller men who identify with bear culture may also be labelled as cubs.


From the GROWLR homepage:

Description
More Bears in more places... GROWLr is the complete mobile app for gay Bears.

What's a Bear? A Bear is a masculine gay man who belongs to a very INCLUSIVE part the gay community. Some are hairy, some are muscular, and some are heavy-set. ...And SOME ARE NONE OF THOSE THINGS. Being a Bear is about being yourself, and being accepted for it, and we are all amazing no matter how we are labeled.

Visit us on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/growlrapp

Or on the web:
http://www.growlrapp.com

Okay, so why does it seem like I am inserting a list of definitions on the origin of the, 'Bear Community'? And what is it with the capitalization and colorized text, especially when the word, 'inclusion' appears?

I'll tell ya...I get frustrated and tired of people who wear the title of, "Bear" as if it was a crucifix, and who, being a 'true believer', insist on dictating to others, who or what is a Bear.

I know, I know, many of you, my faithful readers, will know I've written on this topic before. But, like all blogs, which tend to be screeds on topics and opinions near and dear to the hearts of the authors, THIS DADDY is my blog and I can right about what I want....so THERE!

So what brought this bout of grumpiness on? Sigh, I was on the aforementioned app, "Growlr" this morning, when I received the following, unsolicited IM, "just curious... If your (sic) not into bears or cubs and are looking for the smooth version of an offer (Author's Note: I assume he meant, 'Otter') (which would be known as a seal) then why are you on an app that is specifically (sic) for the BEAR community? You might want to try grinder (Author's Note: I assume he means, 'Grindr')."

Why is it that the Bear community is the only of the gay, 'silos' in which it is expected, no, not expected, required that for 'participation' one must not only BE a Bear, but one must also only desire to f*ck (or for those bottoms out there, be f*cked by) other Bears? To me, this way of thinking is beyond reason.

As I've written before, in most of the other 'silos', opposites are encouraged to participate and to interact with each other. Oh, but not in the Bear community. In my experience, most of those who describe themselves as being Bears, think that being heavyset, older, and hairy is not only typical but required. If this is the case, then these guys clearly (based on the information above) these guys are wrong. And if they don't even know what a Bear is, how in the heck can they call themselves one, let alone dictate to others what being a Bear means?

Being stocky, hairy, older, I clearly fall within the bounds of beardom. So, if being a Bear is all about acceptance and inclusion, shouldn't I be welcome in both the cyber world and real world in locals designated as Bear-friendly? And, if I am welcome, shouldn't those 'opposites' who have an affinity for Bears be welcomed as well? Apparently not. It is narrow-minded to insist that the admirers and friends of Bears can only be and must be other Bears. It makes a mockery of the idea that the Bear community is 'inclusive' when there is major lack of acceptance in that community for those who don't meet some arbitrary standards or think in lock step. That sounds way more, 'exclusive' to me than 'inclusive.'

I chat on many sites, Daddyhunt, Manhunt, Silverdaddies, Adam4Adam, and I use gay 'dating' apps, Grindr, Scruff, Growlr. Yet, it is only on those sites that have a large contingent of Bears where I find folks who feel so free to IM me and berate me for my use, membership, or participation.

I do often get, 'wait, you are fat, hairy, old dude, isn't it hypocritical of you to not find other fat, hairy, old dudes appealing.' But then, if you've read my blog with any regularity, you've read my writings on this question before. While I've been asked that, nobody on any of the sites I regularly visit has ever questioned my presence. They may have questioned my tastes and such, but the mere fact of my presence, never. Personally, I would never dare to do such. It would never dawn on me to dictate to anyone as to which places (cyber or real-world) they should be allowed to visit or in which they should be allowed to participate or socialize. Don't get me wrong, I am just as judgmental and opinionated as the next guy, heck, maybe even more so. For example, I have strict views on what makes a 'Daddy' and what makes a 'boy' or a 'hunter.' But I also make it clear that those are not right with a capital R (i.e., I am not dictating or demanding that others agree with me), I am merely stating what I believe to be true and what is right for ME. That is called an 'opinion.' And opinion I am free to share, but not to inflict upon others or insist they adopt.

If, as the Wikipedia excerpt above states, 'Some Bears place importance on presenting a hyper masculine image...' how 'hyper masculine is it to wilt like a little school girl when someone doesn't feel, act, or behave as arbitrarily required? Is the fact that I don't find fat, hairy, older dudes so threatening? If so, why? And not only why, but how? Like the argument against gay marriage, that somehow by allowing gays to marry it affects those couples in traditional marriages, the thinking seems to be that the fact that some folks don't find fat, hairy, old dudes appealing somehow impacts those who do. This makes no sense whatsoever. To me, being so overly sensitive and doctrinaire in thinking is indicative of a community which espouses acceptance and inclusion but is really of full of self-loathing and dysfunction.

If it neither threatens nor bothers me that someone finds fat, hairy, old dudes appealing (as much as I may not understand how or why they do), then why or how is it threatening to those who do find someone fat, hairy, and older appealing, that some folks don't? Get over it.

At least, that is what THIS DADDY thinks.

Uploaded by chuckellen on Apr 23, 2008

The third-grade chorus from Split Rock School. Among the soloists are Ally Trice, Avery Miller and Maggie Guinto.

First You're Another Sloe-eyed Vamp, Then Someone's Mother, Then You're Camp.

For those of you who are homos of a certain 'vintage', the title above is taken from a song entitled, "I'm Still Here", from, "Follies", a musical with music and lyrics by Stephen Sondheim and a book by James Goldman. The story of the musical takes place during a reunion of former chorus girls (and their paramours) in a condemned theater, the night before it is torn down. Each of the attendees is, in their own way, looking back on their lives and evaluating where they are, how they got there, and whether or not they would or should have done things differently.

Anyway, the song itself refers to the experience one goes through as one ages. It, the song, popped into my head, especially the line which reads, "...Then you're camp." the other day when I had what seems to be an all to common experience I am having lately when chatting on line.

Wikipedia defines the word camp as, "...an aesthetic sensibility that regards something as appealing or humorous because of its deliberate ridiculousness." My dating life these days is nothing if not a, 'deliberate ridiculousness.'

I don't know what is the experience of other self and publically described 'daddies', but lately too many of the guys who express interest, especially on an Android app called, "GRINDR", after a few exchanges, suddenly start asking if I am 'generous' or if I like to 'spoil' the boys I date. I just don't see myself as someone who has to 'spoil' a boy or be 'generous' just to get laid. As I said in a recent posting, "As to being 'generous', sorry. I am not. While I certainly see nothing wrong with exchanging money for sex, I wouldn't do it, but if that is how someone who chooses to make a living, fine. If there are guys out there who wish to pay for that service, even finer. I am a really, 'live and let live' kind of guy. But doesn't it seem a tad presumptuous to assume because I am an older guy, I must therefore be more than happy to open my wallet so that some young guy will then open his legs or his mouth?"

I am never sure how to take these requests. Should I be flattered? Insulted? Shocked? Or is it something that is normal for older guys to experience. I mean, do I look or seem like a guy who has to pay for sex? I hope not. I mean, for heavens sake, I am only 49. And, while I am not to everybody's taste, I am still considered attractive (I have beautiful eyes, good hair and skin, and my dick, so I am told, still makes an 'impact'.) I have a good job, a nice home, etc. It does make me wonder, though, have I reached the 'camp' stage of my life?

I get that as the 'older' guy in a relationship, I am likely to be more financially stable. This likely means, unlike in a 'regular' couple, when I am dating someone, I will likely pay for more than my share. You know, sort of like in the old days when the men were supposed to pay for dinner, hold out chairs, etc., it just seems 'natural', at least to a certain extent. But there is a difference between paying for things because I want to, as I would in any dating situation, and being expected to, or required to in order to get laid. I mean, I am not interested in subsisting on top romen or drinking PBR. When I travel, I am not interested in sleeping in a hostel on a bunk bed, in a room with five strangers. So, if I want to go out to eat or go on a trip with a guy with more limited resources, I'll have to open my wallet a little bit more than does he. But that is about me making sure I am comfortable, not about me paying to get some tail.

So, I don't know what to think. Are these boys who hit on me on GRINDR really serious when they ask if I am 'generous' or I want to spoil them? Are they really expecting me to buy them presents, or their school books, or pay their rent? And, if so, do other old dudes really pay for these things?

I get that for some guys (both daddies and boys), a little bit of this 'sugar daddy' interplay might add to the kink. I had a friend, for example, with whom many years ago when I lived in Hawaii, we sort of played around with this. He made it more than clear that he found me sexy and thought I was a great lay, but it was also sort of a turn on (for us both) that I'd pay to fly him to Honolulu or the Big Island so we could spend some quality naked time together. It was also completely clear, that this 'sugar-daddying' was just part of our play, neither expected nor required. Almost nearly as often as I'd fly him some place and pay for us to in a hotel, he'd invite me to the island on which he lived and we'd stay at his place, like any typical f*ck buddies.

But, to really 'spoil' someone or be 'generous', I don't think so.

At least, that is what THIS DADDY thinks.


Louis Prima - Just a gigolo

Bottoming 101

As any of you know who read my blog frequently, I am an openly declared, utter and complete top. You also know that I believe that the role of 'top' is a natural part of being a 'daddy', just as I believe that being a bottom is a natural part of being a 'boy'.

Anyway, the blog entry below from a blog entitled, "An Experiment in Truth" is one of the best 'Bottoming 101' instructional guides I've ever seen. As a total top, especially after some of the experiences I've had lately, I can tell you that both the top and bottom in any physical encounter, by following these guidelines, will have a much more enjoyable experience during their time together.

At least, that is what THIS DADDY thinks.

http://anexperimentintruth.blogspot.com/2012/01/bottoming-101.hhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.giftml by Konstantine, author of the blog, "An Experiment in Truth", posted Tuesday, 10 January 2012


Mike Helms and the Nefarious Clydes' Perform 'Bottoms Up'
Live at Dantes' on 12-6=08'
at the SmoochKnob' Robots and Nusrses Ball'

The Emotional Hornies

Back in the day when I taught, as a volunteer, dating at an agency devoted to reducing the transmission of HIV (ironic, isn't it...but you've heard that old expression, "those who can't do, teach") and providing support to those in the community dealing with HIV, one of the topics of the course was, 'skin hunger'. That is, the need, bordering on compulsion, to touch and be touched. This need often drives people to involve themselves in situations in which they might risk having unsafe sex, just to get 'touched'. Personally, when I feel an intense bout of the hornies, I refer to it as, "feeling like a cat on a hot tin roof."

Being recently (well, it has been since August, so I guess not so recently at this point) single, I have really been experience the 'emotional hornies.' Like any guy, I get the skin hunger, I mean, I may be old (49) but my parts still work and boy do they enjoy doing so. That said, having been in a loving, long-term relationship that was monogamous (well, essentially so) for an extended period, the thing I miss most is the emotional intimacy and connection. Don't get me wrong, the sex with Sam was great. He is a good kisser. I love the feel of the soft skin on his back. He has really nice feet (a priority for me) and an amazing ass. Of course, he was (another thing being a big priority for me) a total bottom who loved to call me 'daddy' during certain 'intimate' moments. All together, our sex life was quite wonderful.

For all the great sex, the key component most missing for me with the end of that relationship is the emotional stuff. I am very paternal. I enjoy nothing more than having someone about whom to care and worry. Sam would often accuse me of acting like a Jewish mother (the stereotype of one, I mean). If I didn't hear from him or if he was late, etc. (I am an early to be guy, he likes to stay out until all hours), I'd always fret. It wasn't that I was worried that he was cheating or that I was jealous or anything like that, it was that I was worried he was lying in a ditch somewhere, or had been in an accident (driving, not something at which Sam excels), or had been mugged or whatever nonsensical experience my mind would conger. As much as I loathe the idea that I have anything in common with my mother, or that we share any traits, I get this worrisome nature from her. I am 49 years old. I've been on my own since the age of 17 when I joined the Navy. I have traveled all over the world. I have lived, for extended periods, in foreign countries, yet, if I go away for a few days for either work or pleasure, if I don't call her first thing to let her know I've arrived safely, she has a hemorrhage. She thinks by being so worried, she is showing a form of love. I guess I do the same thing.

Although many people with whom I have a casual acquaintance would find it doubtful, I have an overwhelming need to 'love' and an abundance of love to give. Most people, especially those with whom I work, find me to be an unmitigated prick. I often hear how intimidating I am or that my tone or bluntness is off-putting. The reasons: I tolerate fools lightly; and, I have a really hard time not letting someone know I neither like them nor respect them. I hear all the time, "I didn't like you at first. And many, upon meeting you, would not believe that you are such a lovable and loving person, but if someone takes the trouble to look past your gruff exterior, they'd find you have a very big heart and a kind spirit."

When I am chatting, looking at profiles, or reviewing personal ads, I see comments such as, "I just want someone to love me" or "I just want to be worthy of being loved". Okay, I can appreciate wanting those things, but for me it is the 'doing' the loving that is more fulfilling, not the being loved. Trust me, not having been cared about as a child, I've sort of gotten used to not being loved. But, and I think this is directly proportional to that lack of love I received as a child, it is vital me to be 'loving' to others and to give that love to others. I think that is one reason why I am such a dog person. A former roommate used to tell me, "you love that stupid dog too much." So instead of, "I love you", I often tend, when talking to or about the dog, say, "I love you too much." or if I am mad at her I say, "I don't love you too much right now." My dog is a royal pain in the ass. She can make it very hard to love her. But, I do. And yes, truthfully, I love her too much. It is my way. It is, as they say, 'better to give and to receive.'

So, of all the things I miss about having been in a relationship and the think about which I worry most that I'll not experience is the opportunity to love someone again. I have a friend, for the purposes of this essay, we'll call him, 'Jack.' We couldn't be more different, yet this is one quality, having an abundance of love to give and preferring to give it over receiving love in return, we share in common. Like me, Jack has always dated younger guys. He is about, oh, 12 or 14 years older than I am, so he's been at it for a lot longer than I. After many years of being in a rather turbulent, though loving relationship, his partner died. When that happened, Jack decided that, at his age and with his preference for younger, masculine guys who like fishing and camping and such limiting his options, he would forgo dating. Oh, he still enjoys sex, or so he says, but it has just become more of an occasional 'transaction' than anything with the potential to become a loving relationship. Being such a loving man, though, he still needs an outlet for this abundance of love. His choice: at 60, he became a father. Okay, it isn't what you are thinking. He didn't impregnate some chick, or adopt a kid or anything that drastic. While traveling in the 3rd world, he met a younger man which whom he struck up a platonic friendship. Knowing or not, this young man seemed in search of a mentor, friend and father figure. Through happenstance, Jack became that for this young man. No sex, it was clear from the beginning that the younger man was straight and had no interest in Jack sexually or romantically. But it was also clear that he had a hole in his life when it came to having a father-figure or mentor or adviser, etc. Sitting on this overabundance of love, wanting to 'release it’; Jack made the decision to become that person for the younger man. At this point, Jack lives in the 3rd world country, is recognized as the 'patron' of the younger man's family. Jack treats the family, and they respond in kind, as if the elder male head of the family. They defer to him, seek his advice and support. And he gives these things, and love, to them in abundance. Perhaps a tad unorthodox, sure, but real, and according to Jack, quite fulfilling.

I am not there, boys and girls. I doubt I ever could be. First, I still believe that one deserves a healthy sex and romantic life, no matter at what age. Second, I loathe children (Jack's new family includes several young children, those of the younger man and his siblings). Third, that is not the kind of love I seek to give, at least not yet. Perhaps with time, though I doubt it. I am not close to my 'real' family, so it is very hard to imagine me becoming a surrogate parent, adopted or otherwise to others.

So, at the moment I am having a bad case of the emotional blue balls. Frustrating, just like the real thing, but there it is. Reasonable or not (for me), I'd still like to find a 'romantic' outlet for all of this love I have to share. It just isn't happening. Okay, I expect to receive a chorus of comments insisting that if I just changed to whom I was attracted, I'd have options all over the place. But, I can't. Like forming a surrogate family, entering into a passionless relationship, wouldn't fulfill the need I have. Sure, it might provide companionship and someone to care for me in my rapidly approaching twilight years, but it wouldn't be enough. To be honest, for companionship, I have the dog.

At least, that is what THIS DADDY thinks.



Elephant, from 9, the second studio album by Irish singer, songwriter and producer Damien Rice, released in 2006.

The Conversation Conundrum

So, just what is, "The Conversation Conundrum", well for the purposes of this entry, it is, "To respond to an IMs or emails from someone completely inappropriate(i.e. not someone you are trying to attract) or to not respond, when online."

If you've read my stuff before, you know that I primarily socialize in the online realm. You can read the myriad other posts I've written on the subject. I take great care to socialize on sites that cater to older/younger relationships and I try to write very clear and concise profiles. When I am on those sites, I also go out of my way to steer clear of guys for whom I would clearly not appear to be their type. If someone only wants to chat with other younger guys, or smooth guys, or muscle guys, etc., I don't bother them, as I am not any of those things. In fact, even when it is unclear, I tend to come down on the side of discretion. I don't want to be wasting some guy's time or my own. I mean, isn't the online arena designed for listing specifically who it is you seek, what you have to offer, and what type of interaction it is in which you wish to participate?

Anyway, as I've stated before, no matter what I say, how specific I am, how pointed is my nick, etc. I mostly receive IM's or emails from guys who couldn't be further from 'my type'. I don't understand why, but that is the case. I am deluged with IM's and emails from chubby, hairy guys, who look like they are in their 50's. Nothing wrong with guys like that, nothing at all. Just not the type of guy with whom I am looking to chat or with whom I seek a sexual or romantic connection. And let's face it. Isn't that what most of these online sites are for, hooking up, daring, romance?

I've tried different things at different times to try and counter this disconnect, to no avail. I've even talked to my friends and my therapist to seek their advise as to what it is I should do, to clarify who I am, what type of guy it is I seek, and to slow the deluge of the 'wrong' kind of guys. Sigh, nothing seems to work. Originally, it seemed like there were only two options:

1)Be rude and tell the inappropriate guys to bug off in some form or another; or,
2)Ignore the IM's and emails.

Both to me seem equally rude. Granted, not as rude as IMing or emailing someone who clearly isn't going to be interested, but still, rude. And you know me, as an officer and a gentleman, I try to avoid overtly ungentlemanly behavior. Believe it or not, I really do try. While trying to decide how to handle these unwanted IM's and emails, I came up with a third option: simply asking the question, "Have you read my profile?" I figured, it wasn't rude to ask such a question. It is short, to the point. It wastes neither my time nor theirs. It also seemed far less rude than simply ignoring people wishing to chat. I thought, 'hey, I'll ask, guys will take a moment to read my profile, if they haven't already done so, and get that we don't have complimentary interests and then move on to others with whom they do. I don't have to be rude, I am not wasting their time or my own, simple". Alas, not so much,.

Below is an example of a recent experience I had when I tried asking the question, 'Have you read my profile?' of someone whom IM'd me on SCRUFF. Alex is, according to his profile picture, is a 40-ish chub/bear. Other than saying he likes to play tennis, he doesn't say what it is he seeks in his profile. Me, on the other hand, posts a picture, provides a description and says in the section called, 'What I am looking for', "I am an opposites attract guy. A total top, I am older, short, hairy, an opposite is generally a younger, taller, non bear..."

Here is how the conversation went:

January 1, 2012, 1:48PM on SCRUFF, from Alex, "Hi."
January 1, 2012, 2:48PM on SCRUFF, from Commander, "Alex, did you read my profile?"
January 1, 2012, 4:49PM on SCRUFF, from Alex, "Yes."
January 1, 2012, 5:18PM on SCRUFF, from Alex, "What's wrong with saying hello to someone who has a few things in their profile that seem interesting? I'm a successful, happy- go- lucky, good person who doesn't need your any of your bullshit just for saying hello. If you don't want people to say hello to you unless they meet certain guidelines, then just block me or don't say hello back. Learn some etiquette and don't be so rude."

Whoa! First, he describes himself as, "happy-go-lucky". And second, he says, "If you don't want people to say hello to you unless they meet certain guidelines..." Thirdly he says, "Learn some etiquette and don't be so rude."

Okay, let's take these in order, shall we? First, based on his response, he is hardly, 'happy-go-lucky". Clearly, he doesn't know what that expression means. Second, I thought I said pretty specifically what type of guy it was with whom I sought to communicate in my profile. I mean, isn't that the whole point of answering the, "What I am looking for" question? And thirdly, again, whoa! He is the one that doesn't seem to get how online socializing works. It seems to me that the etiquette would be to not ping on someone who isn't seeking what you offer and that it is rude to then flame them when they politely point this out. To me nothing, and I repeat nothing is worse than wasting someone's time.

I've had similar experiences when I've simply tried either option 1 or 2. There is a guy from China. on GRINDr, for example, who IM's me every time he sees me online. Except to suggest that I am not a good option for chatting, I've mostly avoided responding to him, yet I've received over 46 IM's from since December 20, 2011. 46? I mean, doesn't he have better things to do than to IM me? On Silverdaddies, there is a guy who also IM's me every time he sees me online. He's been doing it for years. I've told him repeatedly, I am not interested in chatting, sometimes very rudely, and I have made it abundantly clear that I don't feel the need to explain why it is I don't find chubby, 60-ish guys who wear panties appealing. Still he IM's me every time he sees I am online, and he asks me that same question over and over again. I wonder if he drinks, or perhaps has a little bit of dementia?

So, it seems like I can't win. I don't like being rude, but the direct approach doesn't seem to work. and ignoring unwanted IM's and emails also doesn't seem to work. My third option, simply asking, "Did you read my profile", my attempt to politely point guys back to my profile, well, that doesn't work either.

Look, I get it. There are lots of lonely guys out there. Trust me, I get it big time. I still miss Sam, though he's been gone since August, and I've only been on two dates since he left, both total disasters. But what I don't get is guys who waste their time attempting to communicate with those not interested. I just don't. Rejection hurts. I mean, it hurts me, so I assume it hurts others. We also all get enough rejection handed to us on a daily basis. Why in the heck would we subject ourselves to even more rejection? It makes no sense whatsoever.

At least, that is what THIS DADDY thinks.




Jethro Tull- Conundrum (live), from the album Bursting Out

I Don't Want Him, You Can Have Him, He's Too Fat For Me

Dictionary.com defines the work, "Churlish" as,

"churl·ish, adjective

1. like a churl; boorish; rude: churlish behavior."

As an officer and a gentleman, I try to avoid being churlish. That said, I had an experience recently, on Halloween, that made me wonder if I was exhibiting churlish behavior.

I don't know about you, but when I am struggling to make social connections (new friends, go on dates, etc.) I always tend to think, "wouldn't it be nice if one of my friends had someone cute with whom to fix me up." Or, "wouldn't it be nice if someone would invite me to a party, or to church, or to a rugby match, so that I can perhaps meet some new people." If your experience has been like mine, you know these things rarely happen.

Well, for me, it did finally. A fellow I'd never met, but had chatted with occasionally on line sent me the following email, "We've talked before. Always have struck me as a cool guy. I'm not your type but I wanted to invite you to a Halloween party on Saturday at my house. Should be 50-75 people. Gay and straight, some with costumes and some without. Let me know if you wanna come and ill (sic) send you the address. "

At first I was a little nervous. I mean, I asked myself, "what if this is some sort of religious thing?" Or, "what if this is a joke?" Or, "What if it is a sales thing, like some soft of pyramid scheme?" After these fleeting thoughts, I decided I was going to look on the bright side. I was going to assume it was an authentic invitation sent by a kindly soul. I am glad I decided to go the positive route. Because, that my friends, is exactly how it turned out. It was a huge costume party over flowing with food, booze, and guys.

Well here is where the question of churlishness appears: it turned out to be a bears only party. As I've oft mentioned, I am an opposites attract kind of guy. Bears are not, I mean NOT my thing at all. In other places I've lived or to where I've traveled, bears and their admirers mix. My friend Ryan (a major admirer, trust me) goes to bear events all up and down the coast of sunny California and he, and his posse of other admirers are always the bells of the ball. In Seattle, though, this rarely if ever happens.

First, as I mentioned above, Seattle is a bear town. So even the younger guys tend to be stocky, balding, hairy, sporting goatees and beards. Second, in Seattle bears are only 'allowed' to socialize with other bears. The bear community here is only open to bears, bearish cubs, or chubs. I hear constantly from the few younger non-bearish guys here that they like bears, they like them a lot, but none of the local bears will pay them any attention. If you've read other pieces I've written, you also heard of my experiences at receiving flaming IM's and emails from guys insisting that since I am stocky and hairy, I am 'expected' to be attracted to that kind of guy and that is the only kind of guy I deserve to date. Sorry, flamers, but ick! Not my thing at all. Let me also repeat, as I've written before, I don't think I am all that. I don't think I should only date 10's. I do believe, however, that at nearly 50, I know what makes Mr. Happy smile and what doesn't. I am not saying bearish guys are not attractive, nice, smart, funny, etc. I am only saying that I don't find the appealing. As we say in the Navy, "I wouldn't fuck a bear with your dick." I will say that of the 200+ people that were there during the hour I was there, there were 4 cute guys (i.e. my kind of cute: non-bearish). One, a former semi-regular fuckbuddy. One a muscle boy. One attending with his boyfriend and another waiting for his boyfriend to arrive. How do I know these things? Well the former fuck buddy stopped by to say, "hello" than ran off to get a drink. The other guys, I happened to over hear enough of their conversations to learn these things. When you spend an hour standing by yourself in a corner, it is sort of hard not to over hear stuff. I mean, what else are you gonna do?

So, am I being churlish for being disappointed it was a bear party? Perhaps. It was very sweet and thoughtful of the host to invite me, sight unseen. That sort of kindness should happen more often. I am both glad and thankful to have been invited. I am also proud of myself that I made myself take a social risk and go to a party about which I knew little. I was completely uncomfortable and totally out of my social depth. I made myself promise no matter what, I'd stay for at least an hour and I did.

So what do I mean by being 'proud' of myself. For someone who has a very powerful persona (as a professional actor I have 'stage presence. I am also a military officer. Additionally, I've been told repeatedly that I intimidate people with my loud and distinctive voice and my blunt talk), I am actually quite shy and socially awkward. I just don't have the social 'gene'. Give me command of a watch team, where I am large and in charge and I am inspiring. Put me up on a stage, and I will charm the pants off of you. Sit me down at a church, social event, etc. where I am surrounded by a bunch of strangers, and I am a total disaster. My lack of a social gene is something I work to overcome; ergo, being invited to the party was a step towards improving this social anxiety. Of course, it is also true that the whole hour I was there only 3 people spoke to me: the host; the former fuck buddy; and the muscle boy, who commented on my T-shirt.

I've also written of late about getting thinking about trying to date again. An acquaintance asked me the other day, "why are you thinking about dating, when you are clearly still hung up on your ex-boyfriend?" An interesting question. My response, "I've deserve to have some kind of social life, don't I? I know it is too soon for anything 'serious', that isn't what I seek anyway. But I can't spend all of my time hanging out with my dog at the little house down by the big lake, now can I?" Disclaimer: I am still hung up on Sam, the big dork. I'd be lying to you and to myself if I didn't admit that. The spoiled, ill-mannered, and quite insane mongrel with whom I share the little house near the big lake miss Uncle Sam terribly. So between my social awkwardness and still being hung up on Sam, I appear to be stuck.

I think we all deserve a social life. I'd like to think that I do as much as anybody else. Yet, it (a bear party) was clearly not my 'thing.' I have to admit, lately I've been pondering if I truly know what is my 'thing'. Can I really be nearly 50 year old (I turned 49 in October) and still be this shy and awkward? I guess I can. My therapist and I talked about this the other day. He commented that perhaps my 'thing' just isn't like that of others, and I shouldn't expect it to be. He asserted that by expecting to a more social creature, and not being so, I just end up making myself be disappointed? Maybe he is right. Still, it gets kind of boring being in bed alone every Saturday night by 2130. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy time alone and I love both the little house near the big lake and my crazy dog. It would, however, be nice if my time alone was more something I chose, rather than something foisted upon me by circumstance.

Sometimes dealing with the 'monster' we know, as evil as it might be, seems safer than the monster we don't. Sometimes we allow ourselves to be stuck in old, ineffective patterns which, while comfortable, are not conducive to the healthiest or happiest of experiences. Can I miss Sam (and secretly wish he'd come home) and still go on the occasional date? Yes! Of course that would have to find someone with whom I wanted to go on a date and who wanted to go a date with me. Anyway. Should I continue to accept the occasional social invitation, even if it isn't my thing? Yes! Should I try and not have churlish thoughts and find away to enjoy such experiences, even they are not my 'thing?" Yes!

At least, that is what THIS DADDY thinks.