Casual Ties Or Casualties

Ah that well oiled clause “no strings”. It really is one of those expressions whose meaning is very much dependent upon the context in which it’s used. I mean I hardly think Pinocchio was singing about what he might fancy getting up to with a couple of marionettes was he…

Seriously though, you probably need to observe more than a slice of “caveat emptor” when riding the helter-skelter that is the modern dating game if those you’re riding it with have a strong preference for flagging up their non-committal credentials. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. I mean hey, it’d be a bit rich of yours truly to criticise since that’s pretty much the way I’ve gone about things since Jane. I mean you may even recall the time I spoke of actually “shaking hands” with a certain someone thereby cementing our mutually agreed sentiments that what had just occurred in bed was really nothing more than what it was. And that’s fine if both of you feel like that, and truly mean it. You’re allowed. No point getting all fire and brimstone about it. Attitudes have simply changed and more of us on both sides of the gender divide are unafraid to pursue what we really want (however “shallow”) rather than what increasingly outdated convention says we “should” want. Thus we’re in the age where having someone like a “friend with benefits” (or a “f***buddy” as our to-the-point cousins across the pond like to call them) is probably more socially acceptable than it’s ever been.

But… it all depends on what exactly you mean by or want from a “no strings” or casual arrangement doesn’t it. For instance there are many out there who really mean that while they’re not looking for a full-blown relationship and would instead like to retain a strong degree of independence, this doesn’t mean they’re just looking for merely one-night stands either. They still might want, indeed “expect”, a degree of monogamy from the perhaps similarly ”free-spirited” and semi-significant other they’re involved with. Some of you might even recall the almost oxymoronic term I’ve coined for such an attachment, the “committed fling”.

Thing is though, if you’re going down that route and advertising yourself as someone who’d rather have this fuzzy kind of non-committal commitment, you better make damn sure that that’s what the other person means by it too. Because if they don’t, if “no strings” really does mean “no strings” to them in its most liberal and, yes even its most “profligate” sense, then I’m sorry but you only have yourself to blame if you then discover you’re sharing your lust and affection with others.

Now these days such ironies can be especially pertinent to some of the increasing toyboy/older woman entanglements out there. An older woman who’s rightly enjoying her independence and isn’t looking for the same constraints her past attachments brought might find being with a much younger man far more defining of who she really is, but if that much younger man is conforming in any way to certain stereotypes then, as the song goes, “there may be trouble ahead” if the hymn sheets are a tad mismatched.

Of course that’s the clichéd scenario isn’t it. But it works the other way too. Oh yes. Trust me, I know that only too well. It’s the tale about the younger man trying to play it cool who nonetheless inwardly falls hard for her and then finds himself having to deal with the fact she’s nonetheless keeping her options and diary open. But again, as harsh as such circumstances may be, if she’s declared she wants to keep things confined to her own definition of “no strings”, then you’ve either got to run with it or else bail out fast if you’re looking for something a bit more than that. If you don’t, you’ll get burned!

Fact is the casual “no strings” set-up is effectively, to some, having your cake and eating it. Start accusing the “players” (of both sexes) of messing you around and they’ll simply reply, “Well sorry but you knew the score.” And don’t just take my word for it. All the latest media commentary on this subject (complete with their own case studies) is reflecting much the same thing. And to be fair it’s a bit hypocritical to purposely not ask for or offer commitment but then expect it from someone else without discussing your mutual parameters first. And yet perhaps more importantly, as I’ve already said you should also be asking the much harder question of how honest you’re being with yourselves in what you really want from the encounters you’re having. Is casual or “no strings” really what you seek? If so what exactly does that mean to you? And does it mean the same to the person you’re with? You sure about that then? I mean REALLY sure?

Hey look as I said earlier I’m not judging. How can I when I’ve bought tickets for the same funfair. But what I learned once upon a time is that it’s far too easy to always blame that other person if you’ve either not been clear about your own intentions or else worse, falsely set yourself up to play the same game when really you’re not. Easier said than done I know. Isn’t everything in the affairs of the heart and flesh? Yet as those dating boundaries blur and crumble still further, recognising one’s own personal responsibility becomes ever more paramount in the whole mix.

In other words if you’re fairly casual about the casual, then be very careful what you wish for…

By Bastian Dash – see his blog on your personal home page