Do they have to ask permission to use the restroom too?

I recently read a blog where the topic of whether or not it was reasonable to forbid one's significant other to hang out with friends, especially those of the opposite sex (due to the heterosexual standpoint of the author), even to the extent of going on trips with said friends. The author of the blog was quite befuddled as to why anyone would have a problem with her spending time with her friends.

The comments though predominantly in agreement with her, did contain a few dissenters. Perhaps I've been spoiling for a fight too long, but those comments lodged in the back of my mind like a bolus of pus and stupidity needing to be cauterized with liberal application of napalm, wrath, and common sense. Today is that day.

The most verbose of those of contrary opinion was gracious enough to attempt to supply justifications for his views.

"I think you're looking at this through YOUR eyes, and not your partner's eyes."

She probably is. The only perspective one has a thorough understanding of is one's own. There could be some contemplation or reflection on how a partner might respond to something, but the only way to be certain would be for that partner to tell her flat-out.

It sounds wonderfully caring and empathic to say one should look at it from the other person's perspective, however it can also be a tremendous cop-out. It carries out an entire conversation without the pesky bother of letting the partner actually participate. You can be positive and resolute that your reasoning is flawless in the eyes of your sweetie without presenting your arguments for challenge and examination by an outside party, let alone allowing your significant other to weigh in with a different perspective. It's a delightfully useful tactic. One can be a completely selfish asshole under the pretense of being wholly selfless and understanding of others.

"If my girlfriend wanted to go to Vegas with a male friend - same room, separate rooms, separate hotels, whatever - my answer would be NO. Not because I'm jealous (I purged that long ago), not because I want to control her."

Not jealous hunh? Great gooey gallons of bullshit!

Anyone that says they "purged" a particular emotion years ago is either a self-deluding liar of the first order or has nothing functional in their brain case past the brain stem. Trigger the right set of variables and emotions happen. It's largely not a controllable process. Sure, you can learn to redirect or chemically mitigate the depth of emotional response, but you aren't going to be able to stamp it out entirely. Just because the anesthetic has rendered an injury numb, it doesn't mean the pain receptors aren't firing off at full capacity or that the wound is magically healed.

Therefore, within the first few sentences, I'm already dubious of his capacity to deliver a reasoned support of his argument. But let's table the jealousy denial for a moment and examine the other option that the commenter discounts as being a motivation; control.

It doesn't parse. Adult A says they want to do activity X. Adult B tells Adult A, "No, you can't." How exactly is this not fundamentally about the control of another's actions? It's flat-out dictating the behavior and choices of another adult.

Oh wait, he said he doesn't WANT to control her. He just has to. Apparently, she is incapable of making rational or healthy choices on her own and therefore must depend upon his prodigious wisdom and insight. Pity him and his noblesse oblige, his "white man's burden" devoting himself to the lesser peoples. It must be that. After all, if his girlfriend isn't mentally incompetent, it would mean he was lying about his desire to control her actions and he's been so believable up to this point too.

"It's an issue of her fundamental respect for me. And if that reasoning doesn't fly with her, she's welcome to move on to another guy who lets her fly off with/go to movies with/get whatever other needs she may have fulfilled by other men."

Interesting theory, I'm interested in seeing how he backs that up. Oh, he doesn't, just makes a huffy petulant tantrum instead as if his words are self-evident. Forgive me if I'm being unduly obtuse, but how precisely does this demonstrate a lack or respect for him? I can definitely see the demonstration of his lack of respect for his girlfriend so I can see how it'd be only fair for her to return the gesture, but I'm not seeing it inherent in simply wanting to take a trip with a friend who happens to be male. Oh and bravo for the implication she's a slut if she fails to agree. He's such a gentleman.

Friends interact, that's a fundamental concept of friendship. Ostensibly, he'd want her to be happy and fulfilled. Quite clearly he believes that he alone should be the font of all fulfillment and happiness in her life. Somehow I think the comprehension that brain washing revolves around that key concept utterly eludes him. But that's different. I'm doing it for the right reasons. Nothing is quite so loving and respectful as imposing the total dependence of your significant other upon yourself. Nothing is so "enlightened" as deciding your personal ideology is so wonderful you must make everyone blindly follow it.

I think this is nothing more than window dressing for fear. Fear that she's able to enjoy herself without him. Terror that she is not abjectly dependent upon him. He's afraid of what they may say about him outside of his hearing. Or even worse, afraid that he won't be mentioned at all. Or perhaps he's utterly incapable of not attempting to mount any woman he manages to spend time alone with and therefore believes with rabid, cold-shot-of-piss-to-the-heart terror that everyone else must be like that. Heaven's forfend that any man might entertain even a moment's interest in "his woman." I believe he's too insecure to admit it. He doesn't trust her to be able to continue to love and care for him outside of his immediate area. He doesn't trust her to be an actual functional human being without diminishing him in the process.

"Set aside "men and women are never just friends" arguments for now, and think about it: what if your boyfriend, instead of a flat "no," said, "fine, I'll be going with you." Would you be happy about that? A little bummed out? Why?"

Yes indeed, I think I may have a valid "I try to fuck every woman I can when you aren't looking" theory. Just by mentioning the "men and women are never just friends" topic, he's introduced the cynical assumption that there is always something sexual between the genders to subconsciously flavor his words. That way the bias is already introduced for his seemingly rhetorical question to be interpreted in a sympathetic fashion. The implication being that objecting to his "harmless and reasonable" alternate response means that something illicit was being planned.

Allow me to swap the genders so it's relevant to my own bias and then answer his leading questions. Would I be happy if my girlfriend invited herself along on a vacation with a female friend of mine? No. Nor would I be even remotely "bummed out." I would be livid. This is my trip with my friend. I'm a grown-up, I'm allowed to have and do things for myself. No one has the right to my friends simply because they are my friends and we happen to be dating. It might be different if this theoretical girlfriend asked if she might come along too, but issuing a proclamation that she was now to be included is inexcusably rude and arrogant. There are aspects of my life that do not include my significant other. There are aspects of my significant other's life that do not include me. That is not to say they are secret, either of us are fully willing to share if the other is interested. Except for the question of whether or not happiness and enjoyment are being derived from, there is no further interest in those aspects of the other's lives. The point is that we each have friends and interests that are not mutual. Attempting to dictate where and how I pursue my interests and friendships is blatantly disrespectful and intolerable.

"And I'll follow up by saying that the kind of man who would willingly let you do this - rare as he will be - is the kind of man you will ultimately (and probably quickly) become dissatisfied with. Search your gut here, you know it's true."

Interesting choice of words. "Let," as if any woman in a relationship is under the direction of her boyfriend/husband. Somehow I don't think this guy really believes in an equal partnership. Predictably, he attempts to buttress his own agenda with the insinuation that such expectations to the contrary are unrealistic. He then ends with a statement that he knows better than her what she needs.

I hope his girlfriend decides to go globe-hopping with a half dozen friends. I hope he decides to stamp his foot and issue his childish ultimatum. I think she'll be amazed at how much better life is without hanging that self-righteous millstone around her neck.

Another guy so brave as to post anonymously wrote,

"This will be a continuation of some of the other responses. For the record, I'm a guy. It's not about control. It's about respect. My girl is my one and only. I expect to be hers. That means I don't have friends that aren't equally hers and vice versa. I expect that of her...and I expect her to expect it of me."

When did "one" warrant being considered "some"? I think someone is fishing for wider acceptance. Nevertheless, let us continue and see if he's able to provide any fresh insight. For the record, let it show he claims to possess his very own penis. Unfortunately, it seems he lacks the capacity to verbalize at any depth. Once again, there is the short, direct statement that the subject is not about control. Once again, there is no elaboration or support, thus rendering it valueless. Again, respect is invoked as a talisman. This point however has an attempt to explain.

Alright, he's monogamous and understands the importance of things being equal on both sides. Good for him. And then we get to the crux of his world view, all friends are shared. This begs the question of whether they ended all their friendships that existed prior to meeting and getting involved together, starting with a clean, communal plate or whether they somehow boarded a time machine to spend equal time with the other's friends prior to hooking up.

It's a nice thought I suppose. (I'm frankly horrified at the idea of all my friends being shared equally with my beloved. I happen to like them and think they're cool people, but it just smacks of attempting to force relationships.) Unfortunately, people accumulate history. I'm sorry, but there is no way that a guy with two decades of history and friendship with another guy's girlfriend is going to feel just as close to her boyfriend, regardless of how well they get along. Attempting to discount such factors is not only impossible, but it doesn't do much to honor and appreciate those friendships.

It may work for them, but in my experience, when couples attempt to do everything together exclusively, including friendships, it puts tremendous pressure on the relationship and usually explodes like a bloated steer carcass hit by a freight train.

The closing statements are priceless. He not only has his expectations for himself, but he has expectations of her expectations of him. This guy must love emotional pain. There is no bloody way she could conceivably live up to them. Expectations are theories. You could look at them as goals, but really it's a theory that certain things will happen. A theory of a theory has such a margin of error, it's insane. "Margin of error" is not something that is built into emotional response either.

Incidentally, there is no real provision provided for if she doesn't happen to subscribe to the same expectations he demands to be held to in order to justify his own need to cling limpet-like to her hip.

All in all, I'm supremely unimpressed. How these guys manage to maintain a relationship at all is likely a paean to the wonders of low female self-esteem and the "Stockholm Syndrome."