Age has noth­ing to do with rage

Winnipeg Free Press - Section G - - ARTS & LIFE - MAU­REEN SCURFIELD

DEAR MISS LONELYHEARTS: You are very judge­men­tal about lov­ing out­side the box. The head­line call­ing the grand­mother’s se­cret kiss­ing in the car out­side work Granny’s Dirty Se­cret prompts me to write. We older women find that healthy, in­ter­ested men are “thin on the ground.” The long­ing for the phys­i­cal ex­pres­sions of love, such as deep kiss­ing, and even in­ter­course, may be very in­tense.

I’m 78 and some months ago an old friend and I be­gan to ex­press our friend­ship sex­u­ally. I had been in a love desert for al­most 30 years and he was in a love­less, sex­less mar­riage. We have never ex­pe­ri­enced such de­light in bed and my life has cer­tainly be­come very much more en­joy­able. I talked about it to my grand­chil­dren and they are shocked but “glad that I’m happy.” Leav­ing a mar­riage is com­pli­cated in old age, and be­sides, we both love and care about his wife and wouldn’t aban­don her — wouldn’t think of it. There are many vari­a­tions to hu­man love. — Old, But Lov­ing Sex and Not Ashamed

Dear Not Ashamed: Ed­i­tors write the head­lines in daily pa­pers — and this was a fair head­line. You con­ve­niently skipped over the real is­sue in that let­ter and my re­sponse, which was not about sex at an older age, but about her mar­ried grand­mother hav­ing a se­cret af­fair that got dis­cov­ered by the grand­child, and the grand­kid re­fus­ing to drive grandma any­more to her job where her lover is.

Why you felt the need to tell your grand­chil­dren about your af­fair (not your chil­dren?) with a mar­ried guy is baf­fling. Are you see­ing him openly? Al­though your grand­kids could be as old as 35, they may love their grand­fa­ther if he’s alive or cher­ish his mem­ory if he’s gone. Why push them for ap­proval? Why didn’t you and he keep your af­fair pri­vate, since you “both love and care” about his wife, who’s alive? By the way, you ear­lier said the jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for his side of the af­fair was this man’s “love­less, sex­less” mar­riage. Which is it?

Dear Miss Lonelyhearts: I love a beau­ti­ful man who is ugly to look at. He is so ugly peo­ple some­times stop and stare un­til they catch them­selves. I see his in­ner beauty. Be­cause of the movie Beauty and the Beast, he charm­ingly calls me Beauty. I wouldn’t trade my re­la­tion­ship for any­thing. — Looked Deeply and Won, Down­town

Dear Deeply: I some­times think “Hello. Who’s in there?” would be a bet­ter ques­tion to ask a new per­son in front of you than any other. In the movie Co­coon, all the souls from another planet looked alike. What kind of re­la­tion­ships would we form if there were no dif­fer­ent out­side ap­pear­ances from per­son to per­son? Would we form bet­ter love re­la­tion­ships if we were all blind to ap­pear­ances? Voice, words, smell, touch and the taste (of a kiss) would be our re­main­ing cues — maybe that’s all we re­ally need. So many peo­ple are re­jected on looks alone, es­pe­cially in online dat­ing.

Got thoughts on this, dear read­ers? Then write me at the ad­dress be­low and we’ll pub­lish the an­swers in an up­com­ing col­umn.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.