Already Attached But Still Have A Wandering Eye? Wander This

I once wrote a funny little piece about the presence of couples in singles' scenes. I hadn't thought about it in a long time until I happened upon a Yahoo! blog entry by David Zinczenko, "Does a Wandering Eye Mean a Wandering Heart?" Zinczenko explores the age-old problem of men having wandering eyes and what that implies about their intentions (to cheat or not to cheat?). Zinczenko concludes that it's not the brightest idea for a man to openly ogle other women when he's walking hand-in-hand with his significant other (news flash), but doing so doesn't necessarily mean that his heart isn't in the right place. You and I agree on that, David. Looking is not touching, nor does it always imply the intention of touching. So for the most part, significant others can relax about that side of the subject. But there is an aspect to wandering eyes that Zinczenko didn't take into account: the effect those wandering eyes have on those being watched.

It's not exactly breaking news that humans are biologically geared to seek out mates. We all get that hormones and chemistry do their thing - men are visually stimulated, women often look for strong, protective body types, blah blah blah. Okay, so you see a hottie cross your path and you take a peek, no big deal.

But picture this: You're single, it's Saturday night, you're out with friends. You lock eyes with an attractive somebody across the room. Eventually you take the plunge and walk in his or her direction. As you're closing in, someone beats you to the punch. You watch as they casually slide their arms around each other and you optimistically think, maybe they're just friends. No such luck - Mr. or Ms. Attractive is already taken. Your anger starts to percolate and you wonder if they had actually been making eyes at you (of course they were). You begin to think in clichés: ...of all the gin joints in all the world. A feeling of territoriality sweeps over you as you walk back to your friends, who have been waiting to see the results of your bravado. You report the sad news and pack mentality overtakes the group. You curse not couples themselves (unless you're a bitter, If-I'm-Single-Then-Everyone-Else-Must-Be-Too person), but the audacity of such people to be workin' it when they have a ring on their finger or a person on their arm.
The scenario above was inspired by the bravery of countless people on the singles scene who have sucked in their guts, swallowed their pride and made the effort to actually meet someone, only to be foiled in their attempt.

The point is, Mr. Zinczenko, whether or not a passing glance angers your mate - it may well anger, sadden, or outright insult whomever is on the receiving end. C'mon, most of those glances are not fleeting. Very often they last through entire meals, cocktail party conversations, or morph into flirty chitchat in a café waiting line. The single person can never get back those hopeful minutes. So look here, all you coupled-with-wandering-eyes, save your lingering, smoldering, or flirty glances for those who can appreciate the sentiment behind your eyes. Or wear a t-shirt that says, with an arrow pointing to the side, "I'm With Them". That way, singles can write you off and move on. You can keep the fantasy going for as long as you like without wasting anyone's time or dashing anyone's hopes - including mates who think you only have eyes for them. And if you're one of those people who likes to see how many people you can still pick up, to see if you've still got it, know that once singles learn you're taken, the first thing they think and then say to friends, is, "They so don't have it." Not necessarily speaking from experience here, that's just the word on the street. Wink.

Comments

[Orikinla]

I love attractive humans and having a hottie does not stop me from looking.
I look and pay my compliments and I move on.
You have to perish the thought lest the lust would consume you.

It would be better to look and compliment than to pretend not to be looking.

[FirstShirt]

Look, I can't speak for all men, God forbid, but I have been married for 38 years and love my wife. However, if you think a normal man will not look when the lady has obviously displayed her "assets" for all to see then you are just deluded. And, she doesn't have to be seductive. I am probably on a list somewhere for this but honestly, I don't see the problem with enjoying the female form. That isn't flirting and it isn't being unfaithful. It's just being a man. With all of the blemishes and failures. I look and enjoy it...but, I still love my wife and would not touch another female. Would I disclose this to my wife? Are you insane? There is a difference between the image others project and it's physical and psychological effect and your mate.

[Gregorio]

Wow, I really like your karmic analysis. Every action sets off a chain of events. Maybe a married flirt can hurt a single seeking attachment, and for some this is a small matter. I mean if you already objectify your mates as "lays" anyway, you could care less, right? But if you are not that spiritually dead, it does matter how you conduct yourself. A kind of mating etiquette, I suppose, lies at the root here. And that has to be a sign of higher consciousness--not just rules for living, but living mindfully. Unfortunately, mindful living with powerful motivational forces is the most difficult, and therefore the most human of acts. And sad to say, many act only from the level of instinct, and so are not really much different than the other non-human mammals all around us. I have to say that our society promotes every form of "attractor" products possible to heighten the competitive edge, and this is what fundamentalists hate most. So you have the burqa response: no attractors, no wandering eye, or at least fewer attractors and lower wattage, so eye wandering opportunities are few.
But this is the fundamentalist mind at work. If thy eye offend thee, pluck it out. I say if thy eye offend thee, it offendeth thou too, and thee must work harder to become human.

[aigeanta]

we're animals, and the sooner that's accepted the better.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Per Mae West: "I don't care where ya work up yer appetite, just so long as ya come home for dinner."

[LeoMarvin]

"... know that once singles learn you're taken, the first thing they think and then say to friends, is, "They so don't have it.""

... and this happens in which universe?

"The single person can never get back those hopeful minutes."

Look, there's no higher ethic than the Golden Rule, but this sort of tyranical over-deference to the most delicate common denominator makes me want to listen to Rush Limbaugh and send a check to Tom Tancredo. But don't worry, I'll get over it. (Besides, I don't have a radio, and Barak's already got all my money.)

[SoonerThought]

Jeeze. We're married, not dead.

[Delphine]

I'm single and I get the eye all the time, along with the evil stare of the man's wife/girlfriend who often sees his eyes wandering.

The other problem with this wandering eye thing is that in situations where the "eye" sees the same person repeatedly (the Starbucks barista, the office receptionist, etc.), the supposedly meaningless flirtation stops being momentary and takes on a life of its own.

Not only can this mislead the person being looked at or chatted up (again, supposedly harmlessly), causing confusion and actual emotional harm, it can lead to a real connection that might not have occurred had the attached person not "gone there".

This happened to me and a friend at work. He's married; I'm not. We've been friends, totally platonic, for several years. Our conversations were never personal - until recently. And since then all hell has broken loose, and I've basically lost a friendship while he is taking a second look at his marriage instead of trying valiantly to keep it together. It's terrible.

It started with a harmless look at my ass, I suppose, but ended with long emotional talks and a mighty draw to violate my morals and the sanctity of his marriage.

Being attached doesn't put a force field around your marriage. You can still fall for someone else. Better to minimize the possibility by keeping your eyes to yourself, or at least keep it at a furtive glance and that's all.

[ORSunshine]

I am an attached female, but have noticed that occasionally when I'm out conducting some mundane task alone (such as grocery shopping or renting a DVD) I get "looks" from obviously attached men. They usually are pushing the grocery cart while their significant other gathers provisions or are standing in a group while their significant other talks to an acquaintance... but it's undeniable... they are checking me out. I find it a little flattering, but at the same time I can't help but feel sorry for the poor woman who is oblivious. Although they may not be acting out on their desires with me, this behavior indicates (to me anyway) the ultimate desire to seek pleasure somewhere else. As a woman who has been cheated on, I can't help but be a little angry with these men and their wandering eyes. Love and appreciate what you have.

Oh, and as for "polyamory," that's just not for everyone solarenergy...

[Counterglow]

Sorry, I'm not buying this. A little flirting, a few minutes pleasurably wasted...big deal. If you can't figure out in the first few minutes what the lay of the land is with respect to somebody's availability, you don't belong in that environment.

Go to a speed-dating event or prowl the on-line sites, whatever. Hell, even if a flirtatious person is single, there's no guarantee that they'll like you after five minutes of chit-chat.

And don't forget that somebody who's taken but flirty might not be taken in a few weeks or months.

[Trilby]

Gosh, never thought of it that way. Um, I would advise unattached persons to not invest so heavily in a "look" from a stranger. That would solve that problem, methinks....

[solarenergy]

What if the paradigm you assume -- that a two-person couple is the basic, natural unit of society -- is wrong?

Google: polyamory