Return to Fact or Fiction Blog Index

 

 

 

As successfully as the word inveigles one’s warmest inner emotions, it is in fact, far more problematic than it appears. Its exquisiteness can be more than offset by the baleful tricks it plays on our expectations. Concepts such as control, restriction, ownership, degree, boundaries, exclusivity, binary and capitulation spring to mind. It’s sometimes used and interpreted differently by different people with different frames of reference. It’s sometimes used when different feelings altogether, were meant to be conveyed. It's not that the concept is flawed, on the contrary, it is beautiful and very robust but the word itself is mischievously ambiguous.

 

The concept warrants better treatment. For a start, it need not be confined to a man and woman, a particular man and particular woman, a singular man and singular woman or in fact, even between two people. There is no immutable law that precludes a man from holding very deep feelings for his dog. It does not mandate the inclusion of sexual relations. It should not come with expectations, limitations and provisos. These are little challenged human characteristics that are born out of an urge to be in control, a scarcity mentality, fear, lack of trust and / or lack of self-belief. Is it really appropriate, to expect those whom we hold in the highest regard to dedicate themselves exclusively and unquestioningly to our physical and emotional selves, indefinitely?

 

A more precise and arguably more generous treatment comes to mind. In this treatment, the “concept” is seen as a set of concentric spheres; let’s call it an onion for illustrative purposes. The concept therefore is made up of “layers” where the layers are defined by a richness of precedent and example rather than a single fallible word, or, a phrase or sentence for that matter, for which its efficacy is entirely dependent on one’s eloquence rather than one’s true intentions. In this concept every “person” has their own onion and all people that touch their life, namely “objects”, have a set of coordinates within the onion assigning them to a particular layer. The layer assigned is variable but stability is more likely as a relationship matures towards the “core”. The object or objects can move across layer boundaries but are unlikely to reach the core without possessing the inherent stability to remain there. The constituents of the precedent and example may vary from person to person. It does however require a degree of “balanced reciprocation”, for example, an object in a person’s layer 2, is quite likely to be in layer 2 from the object’s frame of reference. This concept may best be clarified by some examples of the inner few layers.

 

The “innermost layer”, in my view, contains one or more objects with whom one cannot imagine life without. With whom one shares all things and shares all truths. Transparency and honesty are not asked or hoped for, they just are, unalterably. The inner layer requires history; one cannot enter another’s innermost layer at first sight. It requires total physical, intellectual, emotional and financial integration. It would contain an object or objects with whom one shares sustained, intense sexual joy. Objects would make no call on others in the layer, those in other layers and certainly not on the person. One would be saddened by even the temporary absence of an object in their innermost layer, would gladly exchange their wealth to cure an ill and would die to counter a threat. A key focus of a person towards an object or objects in this layer is the wellbeing and happiness of those object or objects.

 

The “adjacent layer” may be occupied by an object or objects that lacked one or more of the innermost layer characteristics yet retain most. Those in this layer may or may not have a sexual relationship but are likely to invoke the same complete sharing and selfless protectiveness as an object or objects in the innermost layer. Objects here may include committed couples who lack history, those who have not had time to share the joys and sadnesses, the successes and failures and the growing togetherness that comes only with the passing of time. It may also include one’s parents, children or very close siblings. There is likely to be more objects in the adjacent layer than the innermost layer. The happiness of the object or objects in this layer is also of paramount importance.

 

The “nearby layer” contains an even broader group of objects. Those in this layer may or may not have a sexual relationship and they are likely to invoke a less intense desire for sharing and protectiveness. It is unlikely there would be significant physical, intellectual, emotional and financial integration at this layer. One would be keen to help objects in this layer towards their happiness and success. General feelings or warmth and caring exist but lacking integration causes distinction from the adjacent layer. This layer may include best friends, extended family, newly formed human relationships and relationships with pets. All three inner layers contain a strong sense of shared past and shared future.

 

The next layer, known as the "temporal layer" is quite similar to the nearby layer with the most notable difference being, there is only a relatively short sense of past and future; the onion’s fourth dimension if you will. This layer could typical contain an object or objects that were an intense focus for a short period in time, from minutes to years. Those in this layer may or may not have a sexual relationship. In this layer one may find the object of an intense but futile holiday romance, closest work or business colleagues or a relationship between a sex worker and a regular client, however the latter example, often, but not always, suffers from lack of balanced reciprocation. One would be keen to help objects in this layer towards their happiness and success. General feelings or warmth exist but this layer lacks physical, intellectual, emotional and financial integration and is silent on long-term past and the long-term future.

 

The layers can go on, more or less indefinitely but I think the point being made is now sufficiently clear. I guess if you got this far, you’re probable saying to yourself right now, well I get that this Flexi is a deep thinker, up there with other genii like Plato, Nietzsche, Newton, but how can I put this wisdom to good use in my life. Well my friends, the answer is simple.

 

Hence forth, during intercourse with others, try to picture your object in a layer that is relevant and true to the situation. As you kiss your life partner goodnight you just whisper “Goodnight Darling, I innermost layer you.” It has quite a ring to it don’t you think. Perhaps to your Pug you could say “You’re such a nearby layerly little dog. Or the next time you’ve just experienced intense sexual pleasure with your favourite working lady you just whisper “Thankyou Darling, I temporal layer you.” and everyone’s happy, no mix ups, no misunderstandings and no concerns.

 

I think we may be on the cusp of something really big here and you’re in on the ground floor folks.