Friday 10 October 2008

Will You Be My Mistress?

I was little bit drunk Wednesday night (it happens, frequently in fact) and I kind of said something to Haydee which she didn't find perhaps as flattering as I, in my drunkenness intended it to be. Because in my drunken way I was offering her what I considered the most I can possibly offer.

I said I wanted her to be my mistress.
Now, she wasn't impressed by that at all. 'A mistress? Like a dirty little secret you hide away?'

Well, yes.
And I suppose you might argue that bearing in mind we've clearly established that this actually is the woman I want to spend my life with, the HOW I want to do that is a little...odd.

And I suppose you might argue that it's an archaic concept anyway. Not really. You see Haydee picked up on the concept straight away.
And Haydee, being Haydee, could see exactly why it's the solution I'd be most comfortable with. Haydee has figured out exactly why it is, that I like to keep my love life a total secret.
And what it is about the idea of having my life partner fulfilling a mistress role, that makes it in reality, the way I'd ideally want it.

Why do people keep mistresses?

Well, Kings and nobility used to for the very simple reason, that firstly they could in practise, due to their wealth and power live polygamously, in a world where monogamy was theoretically the norm.
Secondly, they rarely married for love. So their mistress was often their TRUE love. The wife they would have wanted, if they'd a free choice. And usually, it was kept low key.

The Catholic clergy- especially the higher ranks, kept mistresses. Again, because many of them didn't join the church because they wanted to lead sinless lives. It was a route to power. So their mistress was often the wife they couldn't have.

And of course, in an age when divorce wasn't possible, middle aged men kept mistresses when they'd fallen out of love with their wife and couldn't marry the new love.

But mistresses have been kept throughout history by people who were perfectly free to marry and live openly with a woman.

So why didn't they? And what was it that made their partner definable as a mistress?

A mistress is more than just a partner. It's often, privately, like a marriage. But that's the point. PRIVATELY.
The definition of being a mistress, is the lack of public acknowledgement.

And that, of course is the point. Many people in history have kept mistresses not because they COULDN'T marry their love, but because they didn't want to admit their existence publicly.

I suppose the one that everyone knows is Hitler. But Jim Morrison likewise kept his girlfriend a closely guarded secret. Same reasons, of course. Public image.

Now, it's a curious fact that in RL, there's one thing I'm very cagey about. In most senses I'm VERY open. I have no shame at all about standing in the middle of the office telling the most sordid anecdotes about myself. But I'm compulsive about being thought of as single. I like to keep my love life a total secret. Close friends might know. But as far as the company I work for and my family are aware, I'm ALWAYS single.

I like people to think I'm single, even when I'm not. Always have done.


Because I've got used to the advantages that being single- or appearing to be single has- if you're me. Or someone like me.

If you're a person who basically lives off their charm, you don't want to lose that edge.

Available, but not attainable. That's what you give off, and what you WANT to give off.
Because you get treated in a different way, if you're single.

Men trust you more. Because they think there's no one you share pillow talk with. They can confide in you, you're more laddish, more 'up for it'. They'll invite you to partake in things they might not, if they knew you were attached. They will bond better with you. Instinctively, men don't bond as well with someone who they know to be attached in a serious way. Fact.

And of course, you really lose out on the impression you make on women. They just don't look at you the same way, most don't.

The fact is, women pay you a lot more attention if they see you as a possible sleeping partner. No salesman with any sense goes into a meeting with a woman with a ring on his finger. He totally loses the power to use sexual chemistry as a sales tool.

In other words, I like my public persona to be available, but unattainable. As in, it's worth paying me attention because I might conceivably sleep with you. But always keep that impression of being slightly out of reach for more than that. It's a very good dynamic.

The fact is, I don't like the idea of women looking at me and not seeing me as a possible sexual partner.
And of course, it isn't so I can have sex with them all. Not at all.

In fact, I even like to look available to gay men, if I can. I actually like to keep people guessing about my sexual identity, period. Make everyone think they have a chance.

You see, Haydee could see the reason. Why having a mistress is the ideal for me.

I was on the point of explaining when she said 'Can I make a stab and say it's because it makes you unavailable and you rather have women fauning over you than not? How could you possibly be the centre of everyone's world if you were coupled up? Being the centre of one person's world isn't enough for you. And it's not a matter of you not wanting to be responsible for someone else's happiness or any of that other claptrap you spout. It's because if the world knew you had someone at home looking after you, no one else would want to or feel the need to.'

And she's right, of course.

You see, I'm quite happy writing about her on this blog, because really, it doesn't detract from the way I like to be seen. But if she turned round and totally changed her mind? Actually decided she wanted to be with me?

You see, I actually had a contingency plan for that possibility and how it would relate to the blog. If we ever had have got together, the plan was to give her a totally new pseudonym and refer to her on this blog as my flatmate. That really was the way that up till last night I had considered how my dreams coming true would affect this blog.

Because that's how I would have passed her off to everyone else in RL who didn't need to know. Like my firm, my family, my priest, anyone I would have met publicly. Only close friends would need to know otherwise. This is the way I usually do it. And it doesn't mean you can't show public affection. Doesn't detract from the way you like to be seen. As long as no one thinks- he's HERS and HERS alone.

Because then you'd be shown as attainable, but not available.

And that's not how you like to be seen.

It's that image. That public persona.

You see, it's always been the stumbling block for me. Why things never last very long in my love life. It's the one thing I'm never able to do. And after a few months, most women tend to want you to start to be a bit- public. To demonstrate public commitment. And it's the one thing, I just can't do.

And I've been racking my head about it all day.

Because I love Haydee. And I don't mind admitting to loving her whilst that doesn't actually detract from me appearing available yet unattainable myself.

But could I ever publicly admit to having been attained?

Could I publicly acknowledge a relationship EVEN IF IT WAS HAYDEE?
Could I give her that?

I really don't know, is the answer.

I can't be sure.

I want her to be my mistress.

Could I sacrifice my perfect vision of what would be our perfect relationship, if the price for having her was HER idea of what a perfect relationship should be?

I'm agonising over this thought experiment, you know.

For once, I really don't have an answer.


Anonymous said...

Someone has to look after HER needs too. This post is about yours. Her needs should not be secondary to yours.

I'm sure you believe in equality, so this would extend to her needs too, right?

If you're, or anyone, are unable to meet her needs, then she deserves someone who will meet those needs for her.

Everyone does.

Anonymous said...

You're right, being single and available gets different treatment. ;-) With girls, the loss of that should be replaced by the security that comes from having someone to take care of you, so you don't have to worry about surviving on your own, but I guess it may not be the same for guys :- )as for being with her...... it's often not the utopia one pictures. best give it time, so you can see how she changes, or you :-) cos the first love wears off, i find ;-)

Anonymous said...

Sooo.. How do we know she didn’t actually say “Yes, No problem” and this post is all just a smokescreen to divert the world? Just in case someone overheard…

Don’t forget a mistress should be showered with gifts and kept comfortable… could be expensive Crushed ^_^

Anonymous said...

You are silly sometimes Mr Ingsoc. You make stuff so complicated when it really doesnt matter that much how you fall in love...

Anonymous said...

Please get a fucking clue.

*barfs on blog*

Anonymous said...

I like what Ms Smack said. It's not all about you, Crushie!

Anonymous said...

You certainly walk to a different drummer Crushed.

Not too many women would accept this as you well know, not anyone who had any self respect anyway and frankly not anyone that you would really want.

Anonymous said...

Like I said before, sometimes you think too much. You've got to learn to just go with the flow.

Anonymous said...

Ms S- I'm aware of this, hence the question at the end.

It's a difficult issue in many ways.

I don't actually think there can ever be a set rule book for these things because people are so very different.

Eve- It's also a very big part of the persona I like to give off.

I suppose the best way I can explain it is this.

I'm the sort of person people like to pet. I like being petted as well. You will even find me at parties with my head in some girl's lap having my cheek stroked. And I'll stay like that for hours.

I do wonder if the reality would be anything like the dream, yes. After all, as things stand, I can feel the way I do unconditionally and freely.
In a sense the only thing that could potentially stop me loving her, would be her loving me back...

Interesting thought.

Moggs- Very clever, I like your thinking.
Because of course, you could read the post that way. And in fact, I could well have written the post for that very reason.
There is nothing in the wording of the post to state either way, is there?

I am quite 'Jesuitical', yes. I never make untrue statements. But I'm quite good at statements that have the same qualities as the Delphic Oracle.

I should run my so called 'candid disclaimer' by you, see what you think. The Baker (my best mate) says it's so typical of me. So completely candid, yet so obviously designed to give the impression it isn't a disclaimer, when it is.

It worries me you see into how my mind works...
Are you and Haydee related?

I'm thinking more a live in mistress...

Mutley- My life is always complicated.
It just is.

I think it's true to say I pretty much dissect everything. Almost everything I do, I kind of observe it, dissect it and look for itts relation to the bigger picture. Maybe thyars a flaw.
That I never really enjoy anything for it's own sake.

Shelly- Well as long as you clean it up.
I think there's some bleach behind the picture of Big brother.

Kate- No, it isn't. Thing is, I admit, I'm quite a vain little thing in RL. And I'm used to, as my mate says 'holding court'. I'm starting to wonder if maybe this is the reason that girls of Haydee's quality are actually unattainable for people like me.

jmb- I realise this. and its bugging me.
Because I realise that in this thought experiment, I really would have to choose. Which mattered more, having the love of my life or retaining the image I've always maintained.

It is of course, still only a thought experiment. Not a problem I hav to address at this point. And maybe never will.

Ginro- I would agree. Thing is when I just go with the flow, it usually takes me some crazy places.

Anonymous said...

Bravo Crushed!

A cunningly worded response that is truthful but neither confirms... or denies.