The Beauty of No

My sister wanted me to read the Youngblood article that came out today entitled “The Beauty of ‘No'” by some Psych professor from UPDil, which basically brought the whole notion of infidelity to a new level. Apparently, every time I turn away from sights such as this…

…I am reaffirming the commitment I made to love and cherish my boyfriend. Every time I say “NO! THAT IS NOT A BEAUTIFUL NAKED MAN BATHING IN A LAKE! DUDE! DO NOT FUCK THIS MAN! Not even in your head!” I am dignifying the agreement we made to be together.
And that is bullshit.

I’ve never been one for open relationships, saying that true love exists in the absence of commitment. I can’t fathom it but I don’t question the possibility of it working out. However, the whole notion of relinquishing the reality of desire is at par with denying your self of the body you inhabit.
No two relationships are the same. Even a second shot between the same people isn’t going to be the same as it was the first time around simply because people change.
But needs and desires don’t because we all have bodies. They’re the common thread between relationships, between stories, and within humanity. They’re the given; regardless of context, the body will be there with the hunger, the itch, the thirst, and the unshakeable picture of making monkey love with beautiful naked men washing themselves in streams.
At the end of the day, it’s just a thought. It’s controllable, and it’s different when you act on it. Oh, and here’s a picture of Mussolini.

So yeah. No doesn’t mean Yes.
Only yes means yes.
And Mussolini was a pug-ugly fascist.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s