Despite my unwarranted penchant for being a man whore, there is much misinformation surrounding the few sexual exploits I have had based solely upon the intensity and longevity of my encounters. I love fiercely and tenderly and have had only a handful of lovers, though when I talk about each of them it is fully and wholly - which may give off man-whorish vibes. As an ostensible demisexual (and straying from the stereotypical patriarchal/ownership view) I seek relationships which are fulfilling across the prismatic emotional spectrum.

So why this common misconception when I regale the tales of my lovers? Let me explain.

I was once sleeping with a girl whose younger brother was sleeping with the mother of a girl with whom I'd previously had a protracted affair. With whom I once and only once had a one-night stand with a beautiful girl with long blonde hair. I learned of quiet desire and the trembling power of prolonged foreplay, which opened my eyes about using my own subtle desire within a rapturous parlay. My first was a girl I had near the white cliffs of Dover on a trip from Germany through France shortly after the Channel we'd just crossed over. Married a charming closeted bi-sexual literal witch who bore our children and had me sleep with her lover, then loved her cousin like nothing prior - who opened my eyes to an entire new spectrum - one of intellectual desire! Married another whose true colors eventually cracked under the stress of deception, and fell deeply in love with her best friend at my wife's insistent behest (which she now bafflingly denies without exception). Most recently I loved a being of light who illuminated my own shortcomings; playing in the sandbox of infinite possibilities, we penetrated one another to fully expose and heal our tumultuous becomings.

Needs are interesting things when viewed from various perspectives - psychological sustainability to generational trauma, to learned behaviors, and no doubt as varied and unique as we are; no two are likely identical. Using that as a starting point, perhaps we can become less judgmental, and more compassionate. I tend to sort things not in binary categories of, "good" and, "bad," but rather, "sustainable" and, "non-sustainable" with the understanding these are fluid spectrums, not rigid, stovepiped containers. I often fall into the trap of polarity nonetheless.

There are a handful of people with whom I have surrounded myself that aspire to finding their person within the upper echelons of hierarchal needs, and being the people we are, we're willing enough - or desperate enough - to try. We seek connection. Awkwardly (and through much gnashing of teeth), how we define "connection" also seems to be as varied as we are. This leads to one of the most oft-repeated quotes I hear: "Is it even possible that someone else so freakishly aware and intuitive could exist, and match it?" I have to believe - statically speaking - that yes, it is possible. Just....well, not necessarily simple. Or easy. And we may have to travel far from our comfort zone to find it.

It might also be messy.

I've learned that the scaffolding each of us constructs around ourselves contains its own microcosm of syntax and healthy coping mechanism which can be permeated and synthesized via use of synonyms, and patience. Thankfully those who operate in this echelon are more than capable of navigating both. That's the good news. The bad news is the tools we employed to survive the onslaught of life are often the last to fall. These are our commonalities; what we bring to ourselves, each other, and our communities. Our differences are in what each of us seeks in another. Do I have all the answers? No. Do I communicate clearly and directly exactly what it is I am looking for while unwaveringly and unapologetically living my truth? Also no.

There are limitations of course to how each of us chooses to seek connection; religious, cultural, financial, geographic - to name a few. Some of us are only limited in what we choose to accept. The holy grail (so to speak) is of course finding someone who feels about us the same way we feel about them. In lieu of that, I require only one who challenges me. It is that which is my white whale, and nothing more. Yet understanding that the passing of time allows intervals for experience; experience may yield lessons; lessons afford us the opportunity to learn; learning expands knowledge; knowledge which can be utilized grants us wisdom; and wisdom cannot not irrevocably change us. I've learned the most difficult way possible that I would rather live a life being challenged than being reciprocated. This is something I did not previously know, and I grieve for this new knowledge and how it came to pass both.

If we can justify to ourselves that we've had wrong done to us, and choose fault and blame as our weapon of choice without any thought of how culpability takes place in ourselves or our relationships - to the point that our simple, myopic answer - without once articulating the obviously diverse, nuanced landscape of entering into and maintaining relationships, we will likely never be fulfilled. And yes, this awkwardly also applies to solely blaming ourselves. I've had to learn to allow others to take their share of responsibility. Perhaps we can find some measure of comfort in choosing the word, "responsibility" over blame? Over fault? To help us ease from a harmful, repetitive mindset which serves no one - least of all ourselves. But I guess if all we want out of life is money instead of honesty, fucking go for it. See where that gets you.

I was thinking about my most recent break-up and all the conversation which has surrounded it; both of us approaching with grace as we work through the stages of grief together. It isn't easier, but it's more honest. And (I assume) it will conclude in a much better, more well-informed place, rather than endlessly oozing around the base emotions of anger and bitterness and letting those fuel the rest of our lives as we look down from our ivory tower knowing we're blameless in all things.

I've been thinking about Occam's Razor, and more importantly, how each of us chooses to wield it. For example, I don't have all the answers about the origins of life; of the universe. And to the uninitiated, "God did it," is the simplest answer, see? Occam's Razor. They believe that God creating life, the universe, and everything is what makes the least assumptions. They also generally have less scientific knowledge than a fifth grader, but that's an argument for another time. That said, I assume we all tend to cling to things which have worked for us in the past. Anecdotal solutions to common problems. I mean, I know I do. Mine is logic. Hers is energy. The trick is to allow the other their own small comforts and to validate the successes they've had in employing them without smothering them in our own (admittedly sometimes rigid) mindset. Because that can often come across as finger-pointing. Just as we should never limit ourselves to any single philosophy, so should we also endeavor to not limit ourselves to any one anecdotal solution - allow for solutions as diverse as the problem while taking responsibility where we should, and allowing the other party to accept theirs (if any).

My most recent break-up was very different than the one prior to that because she didn't err. Which makes it all the more difficult to reconcile as it is more unbalanced.

But you know what she did do? She showed up for the conversation. She didn't point and blame. And she absolutely didn't feel entitled to financial assets as competence. It was scary, and (in her words, "brutal"), but we did it anyway. Continue to do so. And we continue to learn. About ourselves, and about each other. It helps prime the future.