So the question is "how hot does one have to be when they're single?" Being hot, I'm either just realizing or being reminded of again, is quite the burden.
Sure, now that I'm single again I've managed to achieve select moments of looking like a babe. There have been a couple of days over these past few weeks where my attitude was positive and correctly aligned with the really important forces. My hair was smooth and shiny and not too wild. My face looked wrinkle-free and possibly even hinted at a little healthy glow. My stomach didn't stick out so far that I looked four months pregnant. Yeah, I had a couple of good days these past few weeks. Well, maybe they weren't whole entire days...but I do remember there being portions of days for sure.
But I'm not sure that's going to be good enough. While IN a relationship, I only had to be enough of a babe to feel good about myself. If I felt good about myself, I'd be happy and positive and feel good about my soulmate. Remember him? The one who isn't here now?
But now....my god. I really have to look good, I think. I've had occasion lately to hear what some guys out there are looking for. JEEZ! First of all, you have to be thin and pretty. Oh...and you have to look young. Those are the givens. Second, you have to either love sex or look like you love sex. You know why? Apparently, many of these men were with women who didn't like sex. Or didn't want sex.
Now, maybe I'm naive, but I just feel like something's not right here. Am I supposed to believe that lots of men are out there now with women who they're not happy with sexually and yet they're staying with them?
What's that about?
How does a man get to be in his thirties or forties - or more - and he's still with someone who's not into him? I guess this is what I'll be thinking about for the next few days. Because I'm confused. Either lots of folks out there aren't having good sexual relationships in their relationships, or there are a couple of men being a little less than honest out there.
I guess it doesn't really matter because I have a bigger question. I would have said a burning question, but I'm not comfortable using the word "burning" in a conversation about sex. Not sure what the diseases are these days, but, as I recall, "burning" was a bad thing.
Anyway, that's gross. Back to the point. They say - actually, I'm not sure who said this, but I think I heard it in a movie - that if you've loved, you'll love again. My luck, that line was in Sleepless in Seattle or some other lite bullshit movie I lied about not seeing.
So, the basic deal is that if you're a person who loves - and I presume, loves well - you'll be doing it again soon. Well, wouldn't the same be true for sex? If you're a person who's into sex - and presumably good sex - wouldn't you be looking at a future of good sex?
Okay, let's assume these basic truths to be truths. Now I think we apply the contrapositive or some other formula of logical thought. If you're out there looking for good love or good sex, but you tell me your prior love and sex kinda sucked, shouldn't I be worried? Wouldn't it be better to get in with someone who's got a good track record rather than someone who's looking for what they didn't have?
Well, I've got lots of time to think about this stuff, cause god knows I ain't out there spending any valuable time having sex. I guess I'm just thinking that my next "soulmate" should be someone who's already been - and hopefully still is - happy.
Luckily, I totally trust in happiness and good sex and I've never believed in soulmates.
