leonardcohenforum.com

The flowers and the chocolates... perhaps, I've done myself out of dozens and boxes; yet, I've always viewed them as a bit suspect. That's probably because I've seen their abuse, with rambling men over-using them to ply their way back into their women's good graces. Hence, other things catch my eye in a more meaningful way. The toilet seat, yepper; wildflowers picked rather than bought do touch me, as they require actual activity and selection on their part; the truly listening-kind of conversation; their desire to do things together; their seeking my opinion and then not discounting it, if it differs from theirs ; their tendency toward compromise; their willingness to cook or participate in the activity; simple, tender touch lacking a sexual goal; supportive of me, apart from him; these kinds of things.

A universal need... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us-TVg40ExM


~ Lizzy

Lizzy,

Thanks so much for sharing that video. It's wonderful!

Yes, I was very taken by it, too, Gina . Thanks.

"When it all comes down to dust...," I will stand by you.
"I freeze with fear, but I'm there for you."

Anyone who's ever experienced the various possibilities sure knows the difference. That familiar hand that parts the curtains and the face you know so well comes through, as you wait in the chilly air for medical attention in ER; and touches your arm, takes your hand, strokes your face and hair. Or, even though they don't need to, sometimes waiting in the doctor's office with you. Understanding of those times where the need is just to be held. As lovely and romantic as they are, I wouldn't take all the flowers and chocolate in the world for these moments. They are the ones that make our lives and the love real. What I call their meaningful presence. During the well times, the knowing/laughing/chagrined/whatever glance or laugh that conveys a shared understanding and perspective... there's no substitute for these. "Walk me to the corner, our steps will always rhyme." A man who trusts me and demonstrates his own trustworthiness. I've said goodbye in the ill-advised ways, but these are the traits that drew me back... they're authentic and near impossible to find. These are the intangibles that matter.


~ Lizzy

hydriot wrote:
>Geoffrey, it is you, not Leonard, who is fixated on carnality.

Yes, of course it is, and I apologise. And when in 'Coming Back to You' he innocently sings: "When you bend to give me comfort in the night" it is just little me who interprets those lyrics into meaning something carnal. I obviously need help, and this is maybe where you can come in. Two people in the middle of the night, and one is bending down to give the other one 'comfort'. Any ideas?

Geoffrey
--------------------
"When you kneel below me, and in both your hands hold my manhood like a sceptre, when you wrap your tongue about the amber jewel and urge my blessing . . ."
[Opening lines of Leonard's 'Celebration']

Geoffrey wrote: Two people in the middle of the night, and one is bending down to give the other one 'comfort'. Any ideas?

One could be an insomniac/light sleeper/leaving early for work and bending over to stroke the others hair or plant a kiss on their forehead or just trying to help sleep peacefully

Or perhaps he's referring to one of those 'motherly' women from Because Of (Dear Heather), who 'bend' to cover him up like a shivering baby......??

But as for that quote from Celebration, well that is a puzzle!!

John the Shorts wrote:
>One could be an insomniac/light sleeper leaving early for work and bending over to stroke the others' hair, or plant a kiss on their forehead, or just trying to help sleep peacefully.

Could be, could be, John. Just goes to show how easily a sex obsessed text analysist can misconstrue the most unimpeachable of lyrics.

clo wrote:Or perhaps he's referring to one of those 'motherly' women from Because Of (Dear Heather), who 'bend' to cover him up like a shivering baby......??

But as for that quote from Celebration, well that is a puzzle!!

Excellent, Clo - thank you and well done. Yes, that 'Celebration' quote has got me thinking, too - especially the "amber jewel". Were it pink I could have accepted it.

GinaDCG wrote:And I like this theory because it jives with our socio/love patterns today. Females get to choose which male they will accept -- when a female (or her parents) are not afforded this choice then a crime (taboo) is committed ... And if you show us how clever you are at finding stuff and sharing it with us, and convince us that you are committed for the long haul, then we're gonna choose you.

Wow, the world I live in is completely different. I found this post, and some of those from our lady friends that followed, completely unrealistic. After all, there are as many females suffering the pangs of unrequited love right now as males ... probably more.

Females don't get to choose males, and, if you try to, you won't get a very good selection of males ... because the good ones will keep away from such silliness. I reckon I am a pretty good provider, always lower the lavatory seat, and consider fatherhood the greatest thrill of my life. But if I picked up even a hint of Gina's attitude in a woman I was attracted to, I'd run a mile. A relationship is a partnership of equals. If I don't judge a woman, why should I tolerate her judging me?

Lizzy is absolutely correct. Be suspicious of chocolates and flowers. All males are born with an ability to "jolly" women along (i.e. tell them what they want to hear, behave the way they want). The best men are those who disdain such dishonest antics, and are just themselves.

Ironic, isn't it? The male you ought to select is the one who refuses to be selected.

Hydriot,

I like your no-nonsense approach.

I throw my 2¢ into the 'partnership' discussion: Given enough time, the dynamic of a relationship is almost invariably tested by better/worse, sickness/health, etc. A person who was once independent and supportive may become ill with a chronic disease, requiring a shift to caregiving in his/her partner – which impacts a load of other facets of the relationship, including sex. IMO when trouble strikes, the most important attributes a partner could possess would be flexibility, humour and compassion, because sex alone ain't gonna get ya through it!

...I'm not anticipating Geoffrey will agree though, that would be far too boring a tack to take

...On second thought, I realize this thread is not about partnerships at all!

It's about topography.

Oops!

imaginary friend wrote:...On second thought, I realize this thread is not about partnerships at all!

It's about topography.

Oops!

I agree. I always thought the lines were about topograghy - a tourist taking a drive through the foothills of the Canadian Rockies. The sexual connotation never occurred to me until I read this thread. That's what's so great about this forum - you always learn something new.

Mike

Hydriot,
I would hope you would 'judge' any woman you were considering commiting to. If you judge with emphasis placed on those sacred ravines and mountains then your criteria would echo popular wisdom's assessment of male selection techniques.

To circle back again to the original topic of the post -- how Leonard could describe himself as not "good enough" at love, I merely wanted to explain how Leonard (or anyone's) female partner could make him feel that way -- and why.

Which is not to say that all women get the opportunity to make a choice. But I would affirm that traditionally this is how the pair-off proceeded. And also is not to say that all women are completely blind to the extent and motivations about their own needy pickiness.

This abuts against my theory of selfishness/narcissism. Selfish people are the ones who reflexively claim that they AREN'T selfish. Non-selfish people are the ones who admit to having to keep sentry over their own desires to keep themselves from crossing that threshold into destructive egomania.

I'm picky about some things, and I try to make sure that I do not let my natural sanctimonious self read into toilet seat and chicken-bone-trash lapses hidden messages of emotional vagrancy. I'm selfish enough to go there, so I try very hard to make sure I don't.

My Grandfather told me when I was a child that good drivers are the ones who don't brag about being good drivers; but remain hyper-aware of how easy, and quickly one can make a mistake and become bad driver. Bad drivers are the ones who brag they are good drivers because they have forgotten how quickly bad things can happen. As I type this I realize that this car lesson probably informed my theories of selfishness.

Gina, I think we need to agree to disagree. We really do live in different worlds.

GinaDCG wrote:Hydriot,
I would hope you would 'judge' any woman you were considering commiting to. If you judge with emphasis placed on those sacred ravines and mountains then your criteria would echo popular wisdom's assessment of male selection techniques.

I never 'consider' committing to someone. It just becomes an imperative. No choice. Wham. It's there. She's the one. A friend once asked me if she should marry. I immediately said No, because if you have to ask my opinion then you are not ready.

I am horrified that you imagine a woman's physical beauty lies at the core of male selection techniques. Let me reassure you that we truly are much more caring and deep than that. Maybe you have just been mixing with the wrong sort of man. Beauty is what leads a man to introduce himself and start a conversation, but after the first twenty minutes it is personality, intelligence, affection, generosity in bed, consideration, compassion, passion, companionship ... these are what hold men. Truly.

My first really passionate relationship was with an ardent feminist who purposely kept herself looking plain, but my God was she alive! The most alive person I have ever known. So street-wise. She taught me a lot. And in many ways, having an extremely beautiful girlfriend is a major disadvantage, because she is constantly attracting the attention of other males.

But I would affirm that traditionally this is how the pair-off proceeded.

Surely not. Historically it has always been the other way round, because of male dominance of the job-market. Only with women's rights has some equality come into whatever selection procedure there may be.

My Grandfather told me when I was a child that good drivers are the ones who don't brag about being good drivers.

I like what an Italian once told me: "All Italians are good drivers. The bad ones are all dead."

Hydriot, I totally agree with you, when you fall there is no choice in it, it happens, end of story. I am told (by men) that as men are very 'visual' the initial hook is looks, this needn't necessarily be great beauty, just something they personally like, maybe just eyes or a smile. But after that, it is all the things you say. I couldn't even begin to tell you what makes me fall for somebody, I just know when it happens.

Your comment about having a beautiful woman as a girlfriend reminded me of 'When You're In Love With A Beautiful Woman' by Dr Hook, in fact I was moved to listen to it on Youtube whilst writing this. It's a great song.

I have always had trouble with the word 'commitment' - it always sounds to me like a reluctant person's prison sentence, and its use never fails to make me cringe! But I couldn't live with somebody I wasn't totally dedicated to, or I felt wasn't similarly dedicated to me, what would be the point? I would rather be on my own and free to meet a person I would really want to be with. I don't want to go too deeply into tastes and preferences, to me those sort of things are a bit too private for here.

I know we are not all the same, our ideas and needs are all individual; one man's meat... (those dreaded dots)...

Evie B