I am completely available now ..to date the right person and have questions
curiousp...@gmail.com
interested in my instructor. Then, I mentioned about the guy I was
with (the guy I kind of knew I wouldn't want a future but became sure
*after meeting my instructor* that I shouldn't work for a future with
him just as he didn't seem to think about a future with me mainly
because he thinks I am traditional when it comes to sex - (traditional
means no multiple partners, threesome, etc. - though he would also say
that those were not important to him anymore. I am now convinced
that he said what he did so that he could have access to me for sex.
Over the summer, bing convinced that I had no chance with the
instructor, I didn't see a need to end the relationship with him since
I wanted his friendship. Recently, I have realized that regardless of
the instructor, I want to end the relationship with him. It may have
something to do with becoming aware that intellectual compatibility is
going to speak louder than I though it would + I am also convinced
that he knew that it would be like that with me and hence he was
reluctant to make emotional investment with me at first and also
probably subconsciously was wondering whether he could live with me
being quite different from him about the threesome things. etc. Next
time I see him, I am going to start the conversation to address my
interest in ending the sexual relationship.
In the mean time, last week, I felt that the instructor tried to let
me know his interest. We had also got into topics that probably made
him realize how I am like as far as things I am interested in. As he
has done during the previous class I took, he would engage in topics
related to online dating profiles which seems to me as a way to
advertise his availability for dating.
I have decided (over the summer) that if he likes me enough, he would
let me know his interest and that was that. Now, I know for sure that
he is not foolish enough to pass this opportunity if he likes me
enough but still, I need help to understand some things. Things such
as what I should do *when the time comes* to let him know that I would
not be interested in a fling and so if he already knows that it would
be no more than a fling, he needs not to as me out. Of course, there
are other things but those questions wouldn't arise unless things
progress...
Please don't tell me to just tell it like they way I am saying here.
I want to let him know about that ahead of time *as opportunity
arises* before he approaches me. That way he could make an informed
decision and I get to keep the instructor-student friendship I have
with him.
Tom Allen
> Please don't tell me to just tell it like they way I am saying here.
Oh.
Okay, have it your way.
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com/
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself. I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
Anonymous Jack
> Some of the regulars here may remember my posting about being
> interested in my instructor.
>
> related to online dating profiles which seems to me as a way to
> advertise his availability for dating.
Er- he would engage with _you_ on those topics, or engage the class?
If he is engaging the class in this topic: a) it's very wrong b) he
might be trolling for any available women
> Things such
> as what I should do *when the time comes* to let him know that I would
> not be interested in a fling and so if he already knows that it would
> be no more than a fling, he needs not to ask me out.
Well... my two cents - you're assuming that he'd be honest about the
commitment to a relationship, and not lie to get sex.
I've heard rumors that sometimes, men actually lie to get sex.
Shocking, no?
That aside, here's an idea... ask if he has any dating profiles or see
if he uses any of the online dating companies and find out which
ones. Then look up his profile and see if he says he wants a
commitment or is looking for a fling.
Or just ask him if he thinks he'll find a soul-mate online and if
that's what he's actually looking for.
Or you could just visit the instructor and get naked and have sex with
him. .. it wouldn't be the end of the world if things didn't work out.
toramjero
So, if I understand correctly your long text:
-you are going to split with your boyfriend
-your instructor appears to be available
-you would like him to propose
-you don't want to have just a short fling with him.
Maybe I a old-fashioned, but there are a few things I miss in your
story. Emotions. Attraction. Desire. Love, even.
-Elizabeth-
As a former university lecturer, I have grave issues with an account
of a lecturer trying to get a student into a sexual relationship. It
is unethical, and probably has more to do with power-relations than
genuine caring between equals. I would be very suspicious of this man,
if I were you. I've seen an awful lot of student-teacher relationships
hit the wall, with students feeling they have to drop out of school
and lecturers dragged before ethics committees. Not good.
-Elizabeth
curiousp...@gmail.com
> On Oct 1, 12:00 pm, curiousperson...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Some of the regulars here may remember my posting about being
> > interested in my instructor.
>
> > As he has done during the previous class I took, he would engage in topics
> > related to online dating profiles which seems to me as a way to
> > advertise his availability for dating.
>
> Er- he would engage with _you_ on those topics, or engage the class?
He would just make fun of himself talking to the class, saying things
like how he didn't have things the women described.
>
> If he is engaging the class in this topic: a) it's very wrong b) he
> might be trolling for any available women
I don't think he does that in all classes. A friend of mine took
another class of his and he didn't mention one important about himself
which I now realized that he did in the class I was in he mentioned in
the class I was in. Even at that time, he was repeating it again and
again until *I* asked him a question related to it. It seemed that he
wanted me to *hear* his reasons. After I asked a question relating to
it ( a signal that I heard him), he never brought it up again.
As far as trolling for any available women, that is not the reason at
all. There were only 3 women - one was way over 55, one was way
overweight, and then me last time, and there is only one (me) this
time in the class. These kind of classes are not the kind of classes
where the credit can be used toward a BS or MS degree. It is strictly
for career advancement. Hence students are not typical college age
though there is one or two.
>
> > Things such
> > as what I should do *when the time comes* to let him know that I would
> > not be interested in a fling and so if he already knows that it would
> > be no more than a fling, he needs not to ask me out.
>
> Well... my two cents - you're assuming that he'd be honest about the
> commitment to a relationship, and not lie to get sex.
he is the type of person who does lie but people can be misleading
themselves and so I am going to be very careful.
>
> I've heard rumors that sometimes, men actually lie to get sex.
> Shocking, no?
NO.
>
> That aside, here's an idea... ask if he has any dating profiles or see
> if he uses any of the online dating companies and find out which
> ones. Then look up his profile and see if he says he wants a
> commitment or is looking for a fling.
Great idea. If he ever makes a move, I'll do just that.
>
> Or just ask him if he thinks he'll find a soul-mate online and if
> that's what he's actually looking for.
That would be a good question to ask if he talks about online thing
again. I don't know whether I should use the word "soul mate" though
since he is not spiritual type person. He did mention the word
"Perfect women" (for him) once but it was clearly damage control after
he slipped his tongue referring to his ex-wife as wife - he even
looked at me after he slipped his tongue - I sit at the front row near
his desk area. he also went into length about his daily schedule where
he used the term 'parental duty" babysitting his son (after he gets
home form school at the boy's mama's house).
I guess it was good to know that I made him nervous about slipping his
tongue but then during a previous class, one time, I asked him whether
his ex stills runs the show in his house when he was talking about
cleaning up the garage w/o letting her know because she had been
telling him to do so. At that time, he answered in length to indicate
that she didn't run the house in his house but like all divorced men
with children under age, I am sure he couldn't break away from her
altogether just yet especially when he has no other woman which BTW,
he did mention it very early on during this class saying how no one
bugs him about him not shaving his beard..
>
> Or you could just visit the instructor and get naked and have sex with
> him. .. it wouldn't be the end of the world if things didn't work out.
Never.
Right now, all my antennas are up even more; I made a vow to myself
when I moved to this city, I will never invest emotional to any man
and allow myself to get hurt again unless I knew that*he* would have a
genuine interest in finding a long-term relationship.
Tom Allen
Heh - way to cut to the bone ;-)
> Maybe I a old-fashioned, but there are a few things I miss in your
> story. Emotions. Attraction. Desire. Love, even.
Well, maybe I'm new-fashioned; I still dont' understand why anybody out
of high school needs to play these kinds of games. Why can't she simply
say to him "Hi, let's go our for coffee/drinks/dinner," and then simply
ask him if he'd like play some naked Twister later on? I mean, you're
all adults, right?
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself... I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
toramjero
> toramjero wrote:
> > On Oct 1, 6:00 pm, curiousperson...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> Please don't tell me to just tell it like they way I am saying here.
> >> I want to let him know about that ahead of time *as opportunity
> >> arises* before he approaches me. That way he could make an informed
> >> decision and I get to keep the instructor-student friendship I have
> >> with him.
>
> > So, if I understand correctly your long text:
> > -you are going to split with your boyfriend
> > -your instructor appears to be available
> > -you would like him to propose
> > -you don't want to have just a short fling with him.
>
> Heh - way to cut to the bone ;-)
>
I'm glad you like it.
> > Maybe I a old-fashioned, but there are a few things I miss in your
> > story. Emotions. Attraction. Desire. Love, even.
>
> Well, maybe I'm new-fashioned; I still dont' understand why anybody out
> of high school needs to play these kinds of games. Why can't she simply
> say to him "Hi, let's go our for coffee/drinks/dinner," and then simply
> ask him if he'd like play some naked Twister later on? I mean, you're
> all adults, right?
>
Sometimes I wonder.
> --
> Tom Allenhttp://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
curiousp...@gmail.com
Thank you. I has started wondering whether he is just trying to see
whether he gets a female student fall for him. It would be an ego
boost for him for sure. I am not going to make myself available
while I am his student. If he is genuinely interested in me, he knows
how to reach me after i am done with the classes.
curiousp...@gmail.com
Are you dumb? He is not my boyfriend. He is a user. the words he
said he recently made me realize that something he said early on -
which I was suspicious as al ie - was a lie
> -your instructor appears to be available
> -you would like him to propose
You definitely are retarded. I am only interested in getting to know
people who is interested in checking out the possibility of a long
term relationship with me. I am not interested in a sexual
relationship with with no emotional investment which most men are
after. they should go to sluts instead of trying to use the girl next
door as a slut.
toramjero
>
> Right now, all my antennas are up even more; I made a vow to myself
> when I moved to this city, I will never invest emotional to any man
> and allow myself to get hurt again unless I knew that*he* would have a
> genuine interest in finding a long-term relationship.
That seems to be both an imprudent and an unfair thing to do. May I
suggest that you revise your opinion?
I'll explain why it is both imprudent and unfair when I'll have a bit
more time to write a post, if you are interested.
darklily
> On Oct 2, 1:45 pm, Anonymous Jack <alordofch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 1, 12:00 pm, curiousperson...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Some of the regulars here may remember my posting about being
> > > interested in my instructor.
>
> > > As he has done during the previous class I took, he would engage in topics
> > > related to online dating profiles which seems to me as a way to
> > > advertise his availability for dating.
>
> > Er- he would engage with _you_ on those topics, or engage the class?
>
> He would just make fun of himself talking to the class, saying things
> like how he didn't have things the women described.
>
> > If he is engaging the class in this topic: a) it's very wrong b) he
> > might be trolling for any available women
>
> I don't think he does that in all classes. A friend of mine took
> another class of his and he didn't mention one important about himself
> which I now realized that he did in the class I was in he mentioned in
> the class I was in. Even at that time, he was repeating it again and
> again until *I* asked him a question related to it. It seemed that he
> wanted me to *hear* his reasons. After I asked a question relating to
> it ( a signal that I heard him), he never brought it up again.
Did either of the other women ask him a question realted to it? Or did
they ask questions as well, and only after you did he stop mentioning
it?
>
> As far as trolling for any available women, that is not the reason at
> all. There were only 3 women - one was way over 55, one was way
> overweight, and then me last time, and there is only one (me) this
> time in the class. These kind of classes are not the kind of classes
> where the credit can be used toward a BS or MS degree. It is strictly
> for career advancement. Hence students are not typical college age
> though there is one or two.
Are you certain he wouldn't have ben interested in the other women? It
doesn't sound like you have a lot of in depth information about his
personal preferences.
I'm surpised that Tom hasn't made a comment about the older woman and
that Serene hasn't made a comment about the heavier woman.
Sounds like you have some baggage (nothing personal...we all do). No
relationship is a guarantee. I know you have thought about this guy
alot, but even if he is interested in you, there's nothing that says
that you guys will go out and hit it off, get married and live happily
ever after. You could even hit it off and have 3 months of an
incredible relationship and then the basketball (or football or tennis
or hockey or whatever) season starts and you become a sports widow and
it you can't deal with it. Relationships aren't guarenteed to work,
even when both parties want them to. It takes more than an interest in
a long-term relationship.
If you are interested in him, it seems like the easiest thing to do is
ask him out for coffeee and start a relationship outside of the
classroom. Just like there is thread drift here, there is drift in
conversations in real life. If you are interested in pursuing a long-
term relationship, get to know this guy some more and see if he is
everything you think he is. Friendship can be a fantastic basis for a
long-term relationship.
Darklily
-Elizabeth-
....
>
> > > Things such
> > > as what I should do *when the time comes* to let him know that I would
> > > not be interested in a fling and so if he already knows that it would
> > > be no more than a fling, he needs not to ask me out.
>
> he is the type of person who does lie but people can be misleading
> themselves and so I am going to be very careful.
It is quite common for men and women to think a teacher is personally/
sexually (or whatever) interested in them and them alone when all he/
she is interested in is advancing knowledge and sharing ideas. What
you need to realize is that your teacher has a job to do, to get you
engaged in the intellectual topic at hand. You, on the other hand, are
confusing this attention with emotional and/or sexual interest.
[Unless he is actually wanting to cross professional boundaries and
have an affair with you.]
Since you refuse to listen to those of us suggesting to you that
lecturers are usually bound by ethical codes not to get involved with
students (at least this is true in Australia - and I hope this is true
also in U.S.) and are hell-bent on pursuing this guy for emotional
involvement, maybe it's time to consider why you want this to happen.
....
> He did mention the word
> "Perfect women" (for him) once but it was clearly damage control after
> he slipped his tongue referring to his ex-wife as wife - he even
> looked at me after he slipped his tongue - I sit at the front row near
> his desk area.
I bet you do. That is sit near his desk. You've got the infatuation;
he's got a student infatuated with him.
> Right now, all my antennas are up even more; I made a vow to myself
> when I moved to this city, I will never invest emotional to any man
> and allow myself to get hurt again unless I knew that*he* would have a
> genuine interest in finding a long-term relationship.
Never say never. I would suggest to you, though, to try to get strong
in yourself before attempting to get together with another man. I also
suggest that you drop this infatuation with your teacher. I gather
from what you say he says about his parental responsibilities, that he
is trying to make his life real to you and not be a fantasy figure
that you want to pursue.
For your peace of mind, move to a desk further away from his. Try and
get real.
-Elizabeth
Serene Vannoy
> I'm surpised that Tom hasn't made a comment about the older woman and
> that Serene hasn't made a comment about the heavier woman.
I don't read curiousperson's posts very thoroughly (or sometimes at all
-- they're hard for me to follow, and not all that interesting to me),
so I didn't see it. :-)
Serene
--
"I am an agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at
the bottom of the garden." -- Richard Dawkins
Tom Allen
>
> You definitely are retarded. I am only interested in getting to know
> people who is interested in checking out the possibility of a long
> term relationship with me.
Mr. Pot? Meet Ms. Kettle.
--
Tom Allen
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>It is quite common for men and women to think a teacher is personally/
>sexually (or whatever) interested in them and them alone when all he/
>she is interested in is advancing knowledge and sharing ideas. What
>you need to realize is that your teacher has a job to do, to get you
>engaged in the intellectual topic at hand. You, on the other hand, are
>confusing this attention with emotional and/or sexual interest.
>[Unless he is actually wanting to cross professional boundaries and
>have an affair with you.]
Ascertaining the correct answer to that question can get tricky if the
professor is afraid of admitting his feelings or the original poster is afraid
of exposing hers. It takes lots of trust between professor and student even to
admit deep desires because there is so much risk involved. Power dynamics can
obfuscate the true nature of those desires, students and teachers can start
talking and university authorities can reprimand both for their relationship.
>Since you refuse to listen to those of us suggesting to you that
>lecturers are usually bound by ethical codes not to get involved with
>students (at least this is true in Australia - and I hope this is true
>also in U.S.) and are hell-bent on pursuing this guy for emotional
>involvement, maybe it's time to consider why you want this to happen.
Because the professor is a human being and is attractive to her like other
humans can be? Professors don't automatically become unattractive and off
limits when they lead seminars or give lectures. They're human beings outside
of those contexts.
>I bet you do. That is sit near his desk. You've got the infatuation;
>he's got a student infatuated with him.
Which can be exhilarating for both.
>I would suggest to you, though, to try to get strong
>in yourself before attempting to get together with another man. I also
>suggest that you drop this infatuation with your teacher. I gather
>from what you say he says about his parental responsibilities, that he
>is trying to make his life real to you and not be a fantasy figure
>that you want to pursue.
I applaud him for making himself more real to her; that demonstrates serious
sincerity.
>For your peace of mind, move to a desk further away from his. Try and
>get real.
I don't think that the development of feelings for a professor connotes
dystopia.
Orlando
darklily
> darklily wrote:
> > I'm surpised that Tom hasn't made a comment about the older woman and
> > that Serene hasn't made a comment about the heavier woman.
>
> I don't read curiousperson's posts very thoroughly (or sometimes at all
> -- they're hard for me to follow, and not all that interesting to me),
> so I didn't see it. :-)
>
> Serene
I have a hard time with them as well. I suspect that curiosperson's
first language is not English. I could be wrong, but there's just
something about the wording that seems unusual.
Darklily
darklily
I really abhore the term "slut." I don't see a problem with people of
any gender wanting or expressing an interest in sex.
I can understand a person feeeling like they are at a point in their
life where they are looking for a long term relationship, however
generalizing that most men are just after sex or that women that have
sex outside of whatever you think is appropriate are sluts is not
something that I can understand.
I don't want to jump to alot of conclusions...so...tell me what would
be the ideal relationship? How would the relationship start and
progress? Use the instructor as an example, if you like. What exactly
is the image of whet you would like to happen?
Last thought...it sounds to me like the guy you were seeing really
hurt your feelings. It sounds like you think he lied to you and took
advantage of you. Like he made *you* feel used, like what you think a
slut is. Maybe you thought there was something more to the
relationship than sex, and there wasn't for him. Maybe he was an ass
about it. Am I a little right or completely off base?
Darklily
-Elizabeth-
Good. I'm glad. It's best to just get on with your studies and when
they're complete then see what that guy is really about - if that's
what you want.
JustGB
Good. First sensible thing I've heard.
JustGB
toramjero
Of course I am dumb and retarded: I am a MAN.
(Something which apparently you know very little about.)
curiousp...@gmail.com
> On Oct 2, 1:45 pm, Anonymous Jack <alordofch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 1, 12:00 pm, curiousperson...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Some of the regulars here may remember my posting about being
> > > interested in my instructor.
>
> > > As he has done during the previous class I took, he would engage in topics
> > > related to online dating profiles which seems to me as a way to
> > > advertise his availability for dating.
>
> > Er- he would engage with _you_ on those topics, or engage the class?
>
> He would just make fun of himself talking to the class, saying things
> like how he didn't have things the women described.
I meant ......"things the women described they seeked".
>
> > If he is engaging the class in this topic: a) it's very wrong b) he
> > might be trolling for any available women
>
> I don't think he does that in all classes. A friend of mine took
> another class of his and he didn't mention one thing about himself
One important himself, the kind people would talk about only to
people they care to let them know
> which I now realized that he did in the class I was in he mentioned in
> the class I was in.
Sorry for the redundant words.
> Even at that time, he was repeating it again and again until *I* asked him a question related to it. It seemed that he
> wanted me to *hear* his reasons. After I asked a question relating to it ( a signal that I heard him), he never brought it up again.
>
> As far as trolling for any available women, that is not the reason at
> all. There were only 3 women - one was way over 55, one was way
> overweight, and then me last time, and there is only one (me) this
> time in the class. These kind of classes are not the kind of classes
> where the credit can be used toward a BS or MS degree. It is strictly
> for career advancement. Hence students are not typical college age
> though there is one or two.
>
>
>
> > > Things such
> > > as what I should do *when the time comes* to let him know that I would
> > > not be interested in a fling and so if he already knows that it would
> > > be no more than a fling, he needs not to ask me out.
>
> > Well... my two cents - you're assuming that he'd be honest about the
> > commitment to a relationship, and not lie to get sex.
>
> he is the type of person who does lie but people can be misleading
> themselves and so I am going to be very careful.
>
I meant " he is the type of person who does NOT lie.. "
> > I've heard rumors that sometimes, men actually lie to get sex.
> > Shocking, no?
>
> NO.
>
I have realized that it is impossible to describe the scenario ..
Soon after I started this thread, there were things exchange between
us (unspoken) which I now believe have made both of us very
comfortable - like each other knowing that we are open to each other -
and since the topics in class are getting too demanding, we are just
concentrating on that. I feel comfortable enough that if he ever has
problem asking me out, I will give him a push .. but not any time
soon.
curiousp...@gmail.com
I see what kind of judgemental person you are. I sit at the front
right next to his desk because that was the only seat left because I
(other than the ones in the corners where it would be hard to see the
slides which is in the side of corner I am at)
> That is sit near his desk. You've got the infatuation;
> he's got a student infatuated with him.
You are totally off base. I may be a student but I am not a college
student. You, OTOH, is getting personal obvious because I didn't
give into fixing my response post the way you suggested. Very
professional.
>
> > Right now, all my antennas are up even more; I made a vow to myself
> > when I moved to this city, I will never invest emotional to any man
> > and allow myself to get hurt again unless I knew that*he* would have a
> > genuine interest in finding a long-term relationship.
>
> Never say never.
I am done readin your opinion. You think you know everything. Typical
arrogant MD like my oldest sister. I got news for you.Most MDs are not
intelligent.
curiousp...@gmail.com
Things have changed a bit within a few days after that post of mine.
Since I plan to take two more classes form him next Spring, if he will
feel comfortable, I won't wait till the end of those classes. Life is
short. I have known him 6 1/2 months now - this period started with
when the class started last Spring and not when I went to meet him
about 6 weeks before that class started - and also was in touch a
bit during summer. But, under no circumstances, I would make him risk
his job and so if it is better to wait till the end of all classes, so
be it.
>
> JustGB
curiousp...@gmail.com
> On Oct 2, 10:11 pm, curiousperson...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 2, 1:45 pm, Anonymous Jack <alordofch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 1, 12:00 pm, curiousperson...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > Some of the regulars here may remember my posting about being
> > > > interested in my instructor.
>
> > > > As he has done during the previous class I took, he would engage in topics
> > > > related to online dating profiles which seems to me as a way to
> > > > advertise his availability for dating.
>
> > > Er- he would engage with _you_ on those topics, or engage the class?
>
> > He would just make fun of himself talking to the class, saying things
> > like how he didn't have things the women described.
>
> > > If he is engaging the class in this topic: a) it's very wrong b) he
> > > might be trolling for any available women
>
> > I don't think he does that in all classes. A friend of mine took
> > another class of his and he didn't mention one important about himself
> > which I now realized that he did in the class I was in he mentioned in
> > the class I was in. Even at that time, he was repeating it again and
> > again until *I* asked him a question related to it. It seemed that he
> > wanted me to *hear* his reasons. After I asked a question relating to
> > it ( a signal that I heard him), he never brought it up again.
>
> Did either of the other women ask him a question realted to it?
It is obvious that words cannot capture the scenario completely and
so I am not going to waste time on this anymore except in telling you
this: One of the two women is probably older than him (or it could
just be from smoking) and the other must weight at least 275 lbs with
a lot of gut. She is probably in her early 30s. He must have been
a very good-looking guy in his younger years and so you do the Math
whether he would be attracted to those women or not. (BTW, that class
was kind of a lower level class and way much lower than than what I am
currently taking). I have no doubt in my mind that he said that in my
class only (referring to the previous one) by telling the whole class
though he may have mentioned to some students here and there if the
conversation gets around to it. I say that because I left my cd in the
computer and so went to the class at a different time when he was
about to start a class and as we got into a light conversation, he
turned to the students there and explained to them *that thing* he
said to the class in my class. I know that the reason he said to the
class (in my class) was that I was totally new to him - didn't take
any of his other classes yet - and also hardly looking 30, it was
probably a psychological thing that caused him to explain the way he
did about that personal info about himself. In another word, he was
letting me know that piece of info because he was assuming that I was
not quite 40 and didn't want me to think he was as old as he was
appearing. Of course, this fact was realized by me a week or so later
and not at that moment. I can share when exactly was that I became
sure of his interest.) BTW, during those early days, during a
break(this is probably the same day) , when I was sitting outside
eating something, as he passed by me, he stroke a conversation and
asked me how long I had been in US. Since he knew I finished my
bachelor degree oversea - he knew because when I was inquiring about
his class, I told him my academic background in the email, you cal
argue all you want that he was merely making a conversation and not
trying to find out my age. At the time, it didn't dawn on me yet that
he might be interested or attracted to me yet. The day I became
sure was about 2 days later an event that puzzled me. It was during a
class, when I took off my eyeglasses and was wiping clean with my head
looking down but listening to what he was saying. While wiping clean
the lens, I lifted my head to see him - btw, my desk location was kind
of in the middle of perfect view for him where he would normally stand
to give lecture - and noticed that he was looking straight at me. I
didn't think much of it but when when his eyes which were as if he was
looking straight into my eyes didn't move, I was a little puzzled.
Feeling puzzled that it didn't seem like he saw me looking at him
because he didn't move his looking at me I just put my eyeglasses
on. Two days later, I realized that he was looking at my eyes while
I had no eyeglasses on and hence didn't want to move his focus. He
was checking out how my eyes looked. So, it was 2 days later after
that incident when I became completely aware of his interest and came
to realize why he was repeating his explanation about his personal
info that day until I asked him a question which I did because I felt
like someone had to ask him something about it to let him know "we
heard you" , which obviously made him feel assured that I *heard* what
he said.
> Or did
> they ask questions as well, and only after you did he stop mentioning
> it?
>
>
>
> > As far as trolling for any available women, that is not the reason at
> > all. There were only 3 women - one was way over 55, one was way
> > overweight, and then me last time, and there is only one (me) this
> > time in the class. These kind of classes are not the kind of classes
> > where the credit can be used toward a BS or MS degree. It is strictly
> > for career advancement. Hence students are not typical college age
> > though there is one or two.
>
> Are you certain he wouldn't have ben interested in the other women? It
> doesn't sound like you have a lot of in depth information about his
> personal preferences.
Like I said, words cannot describe everything that happened
completely . Beside, I didn't tell you everything *that made me feel
sure about his preferences* simply because it was not possible to do
so. In fact, this semester, I came to find out that his ex majored in
the same subject I did my BS and first MS degree. That also explained
a bit why he became attracted to me after he saw me in person.
>
> I'm surpised that Tom hasn't made a comment about the older woman and
> that Serene hasn't made a comment about the heavier woman.
You must have too much time on your hand then.
Who said "a relationship is guarantee"? I am just sick of dealing
with men who want to get into my pants with no form of relationship
beyond meeting for sex.
> I know you have thought about this guy
> alot, but even if he is interested in you, there's nothing that says
> that you guys will go out and hit it off, get married and live happily
> ever after.
Who said anything about that? Gee. Do you guys not know how your
American men are especially in CA? I am merely trying to avoid
that.
>
> You could even hit it off and have 3 months of an
> incredible relationship and then the basketball (or football or tennis
> or hockey or whatever) season starts and you become a sports widow
> That is not going to happen because I am going to check about those thing as well befre I get involved if I were to get involved. As of now I know that he is a brainiac and that he is also realizing that I am just as brainiac.
> and
> it you can't deal with it. Relationships aren't guarenteed to work,
> even when both parties want them to. It takes more than an interest in
> a long-term relationship.
Why do you think I kept saying what I did if it were not for *these
other interest* that I want to find out first. So far, it is
compatible but a lot more need to be found out. One thing I know is
that I like technical guy - the guys that I have hit well in the past
were just like him - and that he is like them in that he doesn't see
a problem with a female being as technical as I am.
Oh, did I mention that one of the things he said in the class
(previous class) was that he would marry someone who is half-*this*
and half -*that* (that being an ethnic group name) stating his reason
being that he liked those two cuisines. One of the ethnic group name
was mine. I am not saying that he was already interested in
marriage. I made a joke by telling him that he shouldn't marry for
food. He just repeated with a question mark.
>
> If you are interested in him, it seems like the easiest thing to do is
> ask him out for coffeee and start a relationship outside of the
> classroom. Just like there is thread drift here, there is drift in
> conversations in real life. If you are interested in pursuing a long-
> term relationship, get to know this guy some more and see if he is
> everything you think he is. Friendship can be a fantastic basis for a
> long-term relationship.
That's the plan - though not immediately - now that I realized that
my Antenna were unnecessarily up. I mean, there has been new
development: he already knows but now knows that I have exact the same
view on religion as him and also with regard to Politics, about
Evolution, the Big Bang theory, etc.
>
> Darklily
curiousp...@gmail.com
No, I didn't think there was something more. In fact, when we first
met, he wanted to date me but I was thinking to move to another city
and so said No. So he suggested that we becomes friends and be sexual
and I agreed with him. A couple of months later, I decided not to
move and also started getting to attach to him. Before I got a chance
to tell him, he got into an agreement to help his ex-who needed to
rent a room from him. Over that issue, I backed out from seeing him
and he was mad. I wanted him to find another solution for her but he
said he already made an agreement and that also there were some other
arrangement like she would watch his disabled daughter- at that time,
he was having a hard time getting a good caregiver. So, I sent him an
email telling him that he is not finding another solution because he
knew that it wouldn't work out between us. A couple of months later,
in a phone conversation - I called him, he said and I quote, " You
said it wouldn't work out and so I didn't call anymore. I thought you
wouldn't want to talk to me. I think it would work out."
Recently, after we have had more and more sex this summer, he said
"Early on (referring to that period just before the ex-gf came into
the picture), I was wondering whether you would ever be like this.
Blah..blah.." So, why did he say in the phone that he thought that it
would work out. he lied just to keep me in circle.
I know for a fact now that we have no future. I have started the
process of giving him hints. I think he is aware he could be losing me
sooner than later. That could be the reason he asked me yesterday to
move in with him since I was going to be moving out of my current
place.
> relationship than sex, and there wasn't for him. Maybe he was an ass
> about it. Am I a little right or completely off base?
I have never had a seriously bad bad relationship in my life. Except
for this current guy, I have only been involve with people who are
like me that the moment we went out and decide to see each other, we
are monogamous.So, whatever precautions I plan to take with the
instructor is simply because I am the way I am.
>
> Darklily
-Elizabeth-
Ok.
>
> > That is sit near his desk. You've got the infatuation;
> > he's got a student infatuated with him.
>
> You are totally off base. I may be a student but I am not a college
> student. You, OTOH, is getting personal obvious because I didn't
> give into fixing my response post the way you suggested. Very
> professional.
I really don't know what you're talking about here. Students come in
all ages. College students can be 80 years old. Patterns of behaviour,
on the other hand, are often very similar.
>
>
>
> > > Right now, all my antennas are up even more; I made a vow to myself
> > > when I moved to this city, I will never invest emotional to any man
> > > and allow myself to get hurt again unless I knew that*he* would have a
> > > genuine interest in finding a long-term relationship.
>
> > Never say never.
>
> I am done readin your opinion. You think you know everything. Typical
> arrogant MD like my oldest sister. I got news for you.Most MDs are not
> intelligent.
I'm not an MD. Not a medico at all. And don't confuse advice from an
ex-university lecturer (who has seen much) as arrogance. Just saying
it as it is.
-Elizabeth-
> On Oct 4, 8:51 am, darklily <darkli...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 2, 10:11 pm, curiousperson...@gmail.com wrote:
> It is obvious that words cannot capture the scenario completely and
> so I am not going to waste time on this anymore except in telling you
> this: One of the two women is probably older than him (or it could
> just be from smoking) and the other must weight at least 275 lbs with
> a lot of gut.
She is probably in her early 30s. He must have been
> a very good-looking guy in his younger years and so you do the Math
> whether he would be attracted to those women or not
Some men of any age like large women. Some men who like large women
are very good-looking. You can't assume that because a man is good
looking that he is going to only like slim women. That is one of the
biggest assumptions going around.
toramjero
decent men avoid like the plague.
You are not looking for a relationship, you are looking for a man to
use / abuse. Any man will do: after you split, you went for the next
available one, disregarding any ethical considerations in the process.
You don't even find him attractive: in all your pages of posts, you
have not written a single comment about that part. You have nothing to
offer: you *assume* that you are attractive and he would "not be
foolish enough to pass that opportunity". You do not like men and you
do not like sex, as your comments about men or prostitutes show.
And you want him to commit before you make any move. You offer the
proverbial cat in the bag.
I have seen this before from other women (and sometimes from men as
well). Under the catchall phrase of "genuine interest in finding a
long-term relationship", you really mean that you would control the
relationship and he would be dependent (legally, psychologically or
else). You said that "you will never invest emotionally to any man and
allow yourself to get hurt again unless you knew that*he* would have
genuine interest". As if emotions could be turned off and then back
on. What you really mean is that you won't invest any emotion, ever.
You want the strategically advantageous position where he is
emotionally invested and controlled, and you are detached and
controlling.
What you described in all those pages is the essence of an abusive
relationship where you would have the upper hand.
Except that the only men who will respond to such a blatantly
unbalanced offer are either naive, stupid or dishonest. And in a few
years you are going to wonder why you only date the wrong person.
Besides, in just a few posts you managed to demonstrate that you are:
-egocentric and self-centered
-not interested in sex or romance
-unwilling to take risks (this is why you want our opinion)
-not very bright (unable to judge your ex ant your teacher hidden
motives and unable to recognise humour or sarcasm in the posts)
-absolutely not generous (unwilling to offer anything unless you are
sure to get something of greater value in exchange)
-foul-tempered (by insulting two members of the group)
-prejudiced against men, sex workers, elderly or overweight people
-dismissive of the experience of people in a position of knowing
better (e.g. MD).
You are such an extreme example that I almost doubt that you are real
(hint: this is *sarcasm*).
darklily
>
> Soon after I started this thread, there were things exchange between
> us (unspoken) which I now believe have made both of us very
> comfortable - like each other knowing that we are open to each other -
> and since the topics in class are getting too demanding, we are just
> concentrating on that. I feel comfortable enough that if he ever has
> problem asking me out, I will give him a push .. but not any time
> soon.
Ok..just to be sure I am not misreading this...
You two had a physical exchange (a kiss or some version of a kiss,
etc.)?
But you haven't actually talked about it?
Or you did both? I'm just confused about what happened since you say
he hasn't asked you out.
Darklily
curiousp...@gmail.com
In case, my response to Elizabeth didn't get approved (because I told
her that she was way off base), here is the reason I sat there: That
was the only decent seat left among the seats I would sit in order to
see the slides which is shown on the side of his desk, not in the
middle of the class. (This classroom is specially setup for high tech
classes). If anyone here thinks that professors sit at their desk
throughout the whole period, there is only one word for it: DUMB. In
this class, since half the class time is lab, he is waking all over to
help people.
curiousp...@gmail.com
> On Oct 4, 4:16 am, curiousperson...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 2, 8:13 pm, toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > So, if I understand correctly your long text:
> > > -you are going to split with your boyfriend
>
> > Are you dumb? He is not my boyfriend. He is a user. the words he
> > said he recently made me realize that something he said early on -
> > which I was suspicious as al ie - was a lie
>
> > > -your instructor appears to be available
> > > -you would like him to propose
>
> > You definitely are retarded. I am only interested in getting to know
> > people who is interested in checking out the possibility of a long
> > term relationship with me. I am not interested in a sexual
> > relationship with with no emotional investment which most men are
> > after. they should go to sluts instead of trying to use the girl next
> > door as a slut.
>
> Of course I am dumb and retarded: I am a MAN.
>
> (Something which apparently you know very little about.)
I know enough that I don't know men and that's why I am doing what I
am doing: No access inside my pants unless the relationship is more
than just sexual with the goal to see whether there's a possibility
for long term. if no possibility and he already knows it., then he has
no right to waste my time and emotions.As simple as that. i am not
craving for sex from him. I am a female and an attractive one at
that. I can get sex easily. Is that hard to understand? Obviously,
you are a man.
-Elizabeth-
>
> I am done readin your opinion. You think you know everything. Typical
> arrogant MD like my oldest sister. I got news for you.Most MDs are not
> intelligent.
>
Isn't it funny that when someone doesn't like what you're saying to
them, suddenly you're unintelligent.
I do tend to be a bit dogmatic (comes from saying what I believe is
right, without playing games) and I apologize for that, but suggest
I'm unintelligent just coz you don't like what I say, well then,
buddy, I'll be blunt (or blunter).
If you don't like what we have to say, either disagree without name
calling, or don't say anything at all. As a matter of fact,
soc.sexuality.general isn't a relationship forum, it's a newsgroup
where people talk about sexuality. You are not talking sexuality;
you're talking about a relationship you want to have.
-Elizabeth
.
-Elizabeth-
>
> In case, my response to Elizabeth didn't get approved (because I told
> her that she was way off base),
Well it wasn't me who didn't approve your post. I have approved all
your posts that have been allocated to me. There are 5 moderators
here.
> here is the reason I sat there: That
> was the only decent seat left among the seats I would sit in order to
> see the slides which is shown on the side of his desk, not in the
> middle of the class. (This classroom is specially setup for high tech
> classes).
> If anyone here thinks that professors sit at their desk
> throughout the whole period, there is only one word for it: DUMB. In
> this class, since half the class time is lab, he is waking all over to
> help people.
Some lecturers sit at their desk all throughout a lesson, some get up,
as you say, to move around. Shouting "dumb" [ie. putting text in
capital letters] indicates to me a smallish vocabulary, and writing
"waking" (is this "walking" or "wanking"?), well....
curiousp...@gmail.com
I suggest that you re-read my original post in this thread. If you
can't participate in the topics at hand, at least be civilized enough
to shut up instead of trying to fill your empty life with stupid
questions to me.
Tom Allen
One more time:
It seems as if there is a lot of game-playing and strategizing going on.
You're over-analyzing the situation. Stop it. Just ask him out for
coffee.
You are overly concerned with trying to figure out if he's just trying
to have sex with you. If he is or isn't, so what? It's ultimately up to
you to decide - why rule it out *now*, before you've even gone for coffee?
There is no moral or ethical dilemma here. You're both adults. Take
advantage of that.
Tom Allen
> I suggest that you re-read my original post in this thread. If you
> can't participate in the topics at hand, at least be civilized enough
> to shut up instead of trying to fill your empty life with stupid
> questions to me.
You are suggesting that DL go back dozens of posts to re-read the long,
rambling, disjointed drama that you wrote, which details the (non)events
of your recent life in which you show that you refuse to act like an adult?
And despite the months that you sit around, trying to figure out just
how to approach just *one* man in just the right way, you have the
temerity to suggest that DL has an empty life?
I think that you need to change the batteries in your irony meter.
darklily
>
> - Show quoted text -
I suggest you learn how to write coherently and avoid run-on
sentences.Watch your verb tenses as well. If you could manage that
perhaps I wouldn't have to ask questions. Your writing also tends to
be convoluted. How you managed a higher degree is unfathomable. I know
my thesis committee wouldn't have stood for it.
I merely asked for clarification.
But now...go screw yourself. You're the most infantile adult that I've
come across. Are you sure you aren't a teenager or young college
student? You sure as hell are acting like one. Maybe that's why there
are no decent men in your life...they are smart enough to run when
they see you coming. Nobody wants to have a relationship with someone
who acts like a child.
Darklily (empty life...*snerk*...yeah, right)
darklily
Looks like we are in a similar club...but my life is apparently
empty.
Darklily
Tom Allen
> On Oct 8, 6:13 pm, curiousperson...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I suggest that you re-read my original post in this thread. If you
>> can't participate in the topics at hand, at least be civilized enough
>> to shut up instead of trying to fill your empty life with stupid
>> questions to me.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I suggest you learn how to write coherently and avoid run-on
> sentences.Watch your verb tenses as well. If you could manage that
> perhaps I wouldn't have to ask questions. Your writing also tends to
> be convoluted. How you managed a higher degree is unfathomable. I know
> my thesis committee wouldn't have stood for it.
>
> I merely asked for clarification.
My assumption was that English is not her first language. She has some
odd phrasings that suggest she learned it later on.
> But now...go screw yourself. You're the most infantile adult that I've
> come across. Are you sure you aren't a teenager or young college
> student? You sure as hell are acting like one. Maybe that's why there
> are no decent men in your life...they are smart enough to run when
> they see you coming. Nobody wants to have a relationship with someone
> who acts like a child.
I was trying to suggest that same thing, but I was being nicer about it.
Of course, she hasn't told me that I'm retarded or that I have no life.
See, the whole situation is too high-school for me. Once you're past
your teens, then stop playing games. Just ask somebody out, for cry eye!
Why all the subterfuge and analyzing?
And the offhand comment that nobody gets access to her pants until they
are willing to make a commitment? What the hell does that mean? You're
gonna get married or you're not. But what's that got to do with sex?
> Darklily (empty life...*snerk*...yeah, right)
Yeah, empty. Now I know why you haven't been able to fit me in...
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com/
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself. I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
curiousp...@gmail.com
>
> > I suggest that you re-read my original post in this thread. If you
> > can't participate in the topics at hand, at least be civilized enough
> > to shut up instead of trying to fill your empty life with stupid
> > questions to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> sentences.Watch your verb tenses as well. If you could manage that
> perhaps I wouldn't have to ask questions. Your writing also tends to
> be convoluted. How you managed a higher degree is unfathomable. I know
> my thesis committee wouldn't have stood for it.
>
> I merely asked for clarification.
>
> But now...go screw yourself. You're the most infantile adult that I've
> come across. Are you sure you aren't a teenager or young college
> student? You sure as hell are acting like one. Maybe that's why there
> are no decent men in your life...
If you are implyign that I my current guy is not decent and my formers
ones were not, you are dumbver than I realized.
darklily
> > > I suggest that you re-read my original post in this thread. If you
> > > can't participate in the topics at hand, at least be civilized enough
> > > to shut up instead of trying to fill your empty life with stupid
> > > questions to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > I suggest you learn how to write coherently and avoid run-on
> > sentences.Watch your verb tenses as well. If you could manage that
> > perhaps I wouldn't have to ask questions. Your writing also tends to
> > be convoluted. How you managed a higher degree is unfathomable. I know
> > my thesis committee wouldn't have stood for it.
>
> > I merely asked for clarification.
>
> Right, with accusatory tones.
>
>
>
> > But now...go screw yourself. You're the most infantile adult that I've
> > come across. Are you sure you aren't a teenager or young college
> > student? You sure as hell are acting like one. Maybe that's why there
> > are no decent men in your life...
>
> If you are implyign that I my current guy is not decent and my formers
> ones were not, you are dumbver than I realized.
>
with benefits a user (it's hard to discern what he is since you keep
changing the description to make yourself feel better about it).
Maybeyour own convoluted story has confused you.
And deary...you're going to have to do much better than that to
actually offend/anger me. The people who can actually piss me off know
me much better. Dumb isn't something that anyone can seriously accuse
me of being.
Darklily
Tom Allen
>> But now...go screw yourself. You're the most infantile adult that I've
>> come across. Are you sure you aren't a teenager or young college
>> student? You sure as hell are acting like one. Maybe that's why there
>> are no decent men in your life...
>
> If you are implyign that I my current guy is not decent and my formers
> ones were not, you are dumbver than I realized.
No, you obviously have reading comprehension issues. She's not
*implying* anything; she's saying outright that you are childish and
immature.
Since your first post, you have vacillated between long, rambling
explanations of immature inconsequencia, and short, nasty mood swings in
which you insult people who ask for clarification of your long, rambling
inconsequencia.
Real adults do not spend months trying to figure out the best way to
approach somebody; they ask. Real adults do not spend hours writing
barely comprehensible questions to strangers about how to figure out if
some guy might be interested in a relationship; real adults simply ask
"Would you like to go out sometime?"
Also, real adults are responsible for their own sexual activities. If
you don't want to have sex with a guy, then you need to tell him so, and
not spend hours trying to figure out if he might want sex, and what to
do about it if he does.
Real adults also take responsibility for their own actions, and do not
ascribe the actions of others to some vague cultural norms. For example,
real adults wouldn't think about suggesting that someone is interested
in them because the only other options were either fat or old.
The more I read your posts, the more I'm with DL. Guys with even half a
brain are probably keeping a safe distance from you.
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself... I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
darklily
> darklily wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 6:13 pm, curiousperson...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> I suggest that you re-read my original post in this thread. If you
> >> can't participate in the topics at hand, at least be civilized enough
> >> to shut up instead of trying to fill your empty life with stupid
> >> questions to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I suggest you learn how to write coherently and avoid run-on
> > sentences.Watch your verb tenses as well. If you could manage that
> > perhaps I wouldn't have to ask questions. Your writing also tends to
> > be convoluted. How you managed a higher degree is unfathomable. I know
> > my thesis committee wouldn't have stood for it.
>
> > I merely asked for clarification.
>
> My assumption was that English is not her first language. She has some
> odd phrasings that suggest she learned it later on.
>
> > But now...go screw yourself. You're the most infantile adult that I've
> > come across. Are you sure you aren't a teenager or young college
> > student? You sure as hell are acting like one. Maybe that's why there
> > are no decent men in your life...they are smart enough to run when
> > they see you coming. Nobody wants to have a relationship with someone
> > who acts like a child.
>
> I was trying to suggest that same thing, but I was being nicer about it.
Yeah, I tried that earlier elswhere. At a certain point I stop caring
about being polite. Generally I subscribe to the "more flies with
honey" philosophy, but if they're the type that bites I might as well
use a swatter.
I do like your post though. : )
> Of course, she hasn't told me that I'm retarded or that I have no life.
>
> See, the whole situation is too high-school for me. Once you're past
> your teens, then stop playing games. Just ask somebody out, for cry eye!
> Why all the subterfuge and analyzing?
Yeah, I don't quite get it either. Maybe I'm getting too use to
complexity. ; )
>
> And the offhand comment that nobody gets access to her pants until they
> are willing to make a commitment? What the hell does that mean? You're
> gonna get married or you're not. But what's that got to do with sex?
>
> > Darklily (empty life...*snerk*...yeah, right)
>
> Yeah, empty. Now I know why you haven't been able to fit me in...
>
Hmmm...let me take a look at my calendar. Yeah, it's a bit full. Might
be able to squeeze you in on the 29th. How's your schedule? ; )
Darklily (heheh...the 29th was originally the 27th...then I realized I
had something going on that day too)
darklily
> curiousperson...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I suggest that you re-read my original post in this thread. If you
> > can't participate in the topics at hand, at least be civilized enough
> > to shut up instead of trying to fill your empty life with stupid
> > questions to me.
>
> You are suggesting that DL go back dozens of posts to re-read the long,
> rambling, disjointed drama that you wrote, which details the (non)events
> of your recent life in which you show that you refuse to act like an adult?
>
> And despite the months that you sit around, trying to figure out just
> how to approach just *one* man in just the right way, you have the
> temerity to suggest that DL has an empty life?
>
> I think that you need to change the batteries in your irony meter.
>
I giggle every time I read that last bit. Thanks Tom.
Darklily
Tom Allen
Gosh, I've established that I'm funny, charming, and loyal. Yet, you
still can't make an opening for me. What's a guy gotta do, beg for it?
Er... not that I'd mind...
suzee
> darklily wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 10:01 pm, Tom Allen <taomlinS...@MEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> curiousperson...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> I suggest that you re-read my original post in this thread. If you
>>>> can't participate in the topics at hand, at least be civilized enough
>>>> to shut up instead of trying to fill your empty life with stupid
>>>> questions to me.
>>> You are suggesting that DL go back dozens of posts to re-read the long,
>>> rambling, disjointed drama that you wrote, which details the (non)events
>>> of your recent life in which you show that you refuse to act like an adult?
>>>
>>> And despite the months that you sit around, trying to figure out just
>>> how to approach just *one* man in just the right way, you have the
>>> temerity to suggest that DL has an empty life?
>>>
>>> I think that you need to change the batteries in your irony meter.
>>>
>> I giggle every time I read that last bit. Thanks Tom.
>
> Gosh, I've established that I'm funny, charming, and loyal. Yet, you
> still can't make an opening for me. What's a guy gotta do, beg for it?
>
> Er... not that I'd mind...
Your newsserver must be slow with her earlier post. She said how about
the 29th?
sue
Tom Allen
::grumbles::
SBC has been so freakin' screwy with news servers.
Now she's probably booked again.
suzee
See if you can catch her... she only posted about 20 minutes before
yours....
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Yeah, I tried that earlier elswhere. At a certain point I stop caring
>about being polite. Generally I subscribe to the "more flies with
>honey" philosophy, but if they're the type that bites I might as well
>use a swatter.
Academia is forcing me to be polite or risk ostracization, and I'm kicking all
the way.
>Yeah, I don't quite get it either. Maybe I'm getting too use to
>complexity. ; )
What kind of complexity excites you most? Mine is musical.
Orlando
toramjero
I am not so sure about the last part. The first part is indeed simple:
if a grown-up wants to know someone, they just ask him (or her) to go
for a cup of coffee, have a talk, etc... But sex seems to be a special
case.
Honest question (not only for Tom): hasn't your experience been that
there are lots of women like "curiousperson" around, as far as sex is
concerned? You seem to imply that it is commonplace that, should a
woman find a man she knows attractive, she would just tell him so.
This has never been my experience, nor the experience of any man I
know. Games seems to be the norm, even long past the age of high
school. Men need to demonstrate that they find the woman "unique" (or
in other words that they are interested in just this one woman, and
won't be interested in any other one as long as they will form a
couple). Women never ask for sex.
You seem to imply that casual sex is a common occurence. Is it?
-Elizabeth-
Well, women should come out and say what they want without games - in
my view. Life is too short for game playing of this kind. Let's get on
with real stuff, I say.
>Men need to demonstrate that they find the woman "unique" (or
> in other words that they are interested in just this one woman, and
> won't be interested in any other one as long as they will form a
> couple). Women never ask for sex.
I do, and I'm a woman. I think you'll need to reassess your
understanding of women as a collective noun.
>
> You seem to imply that casual sex is a common occurence. Is it?
Pretty common these days, I think.
toramjero
Something else I just thought about. "curiousperson", which is
decidely a good illustration for a certain type of women, wrote in her
first post that "she knew for sure that
he is not foolish enough to pass this opportunity". I should say that
I have witnessed this behaviour in other cases: this category of women
assume that they just need to snap their fingers and men would be
foolish not to pass the opportunity of them offering sex.
Maybe I am foolish, but with the kind of character "curiousperson" has
shown on this thread, I think I would pass the opportunity even if she
looked like a supermodel. I don't know about other men. I even don't
know whether or not finding a reasonably attractive man for casual sex
is easy or not for reasonably attractive women.
But what is clear is that "curiousperson" assumes that it is. She just
paints a society where men would be constantly seeking sex, jump at
any occasion, and women just need to raise the bar to get what they
want in exchange. Think about details like her comment on prostitutes,
for example. And true or not, this opinion appears to be relatively
prevalent in our society.
As a sidenote: women like "curiousperson" cannot determine whether
their idea of sex being a commodity is true or not, since she is
actually trying to avoid sex.
And of course, if this is your view of the world, you are not going to
invest a lot in sex, simply because you believe that it is readily
available. Women with this belief have a special outlook on the world
of relationships, and the behaviour which goes with it.
I wonder if there are women who think differently, who find it
difficult to get sex (or the type of sex they want) and, conversely,
invest efforts to get it and, as a consequence, find sex to be
something of value. A bit like men.
Tom Allen
> Something else I just thought about. "curiousperson", which is
> decidely a good illustration for a certain type of women, wrote in her
> first post that "she knew for sure that
> he is not foolish enough to pass this opportunity". I should say that
> I have witnessed this behaviour in other cases: this category of women
> assume that they just need to snap their fingers and men would be
> foolish not to pass the opportunity of them offering sex.
>
> Maybe I am foolish, but with the kind of character "curiousperson" has
> shown on this thread, I think I would pass the opportunity even if she
> looked like a supermodel. I don't know about other men. I even don't
> know whether or not finding a reasonably attractive man for casual sex
> is easy or not for reasonably attractive women.
Congratulations on having your consciousness raised.
Some women, acting on patterns that they have learned in our culture -
still treat sex as some kind of commodity. There have been a lot of
changes in the last fifty years, most of them for the good, IMO. Men and
women no longer have to do the dance in which he pursues something that
she doesn't care about, except as a commodity for him.
Apparently you still know quite a few women who are holdouts, but in
general that is changing.
It's odd that Ms. Curious comes to a sexuality group in order to talk
about how to attract a man in that context.
> I wonder if there are women who think differently, who find it
> difficult to get sex (or the type of sex they want) and, conversely,
> invest efforts to get it and, as a consequence, find sex to be
> something of value. A bit like men.
We've had this discussion in the past, but the answer isn't a simple
"yes' or "no." Most women still tend to be a bit more picky about the
men with whom they have sex, if only out of issues of safety and
well-being.
Wait, did you hear that? It's the sound of several women coming to
clarify that point, or to argue with it.
curiousp...@gmail.com
> On Oct 4, 4:20 am, curiousperson...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 3, 2:29 am, -Elizabeth- <eratedr...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 2, 12:00 am, curiousperson...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > Some of the regulars here may remember my posting about being
> > > > interested in my instructor. Then, I mentioned about the guy I was
> > > > with (the guy I kind of knew I wouldn't want a future but became sure
> > > > *after meeting my instructor* that I shouldn't work for a future with
> > > > him just as he didn't seem to think about a future with me mainly
> > > > because he thinks I am traditional when it comes to sex - (traditional
> > > > means no multiple partners, threesome, etc. - though he would also say
> > > > that those were not important to him anymore. I am now convinced
> > > > that he said what he did so that he could have access to me for sex.
> > > > Over the summer, bing convinced that I had no chance with the
> > > > instructor, I didn't see a need to end the relationship with him since
> > > > I wanted his friendship. Recently, I have realized that regardless of
> > > > the instructor, I want to end the relationship with him. It may have
> > > > something to do with becoming aware that intellectual compatibility is
> > > > going to speak louder than I though it would + I am also convinced
> > > > that he knew that it would be like that with me and hence he was
> > > > reluctant to make emotional investment with me at first and also
> > > > probably subconsciously was wondering whether he could live with me
> > > > being quite different from him about the threesome things. etc. Next
> > > > time I see him, I am going to start the conversation to address my
> > > > interest in ending the sexual relationship.
>
> > > > In the mean time, last week, I felt that the instructor tried to let
> > > > me know his interest. We had also got into topics that probably made
> > > > him realize how I am like as far as things I am interested in. As he
> > > > has done during the previous class I took, he would engage in topics
> > > > related to online dating profiles which seems to me as a way to
> > > > advertise his availability for dating.
>
> > > > I have decided (over the summer) that if he likes me enough, he would
> > > > let me know his interest and that was that. Now, I know for sure that
> > > > he is not foolish enough to pass this opportunity if he likes me
> > > > enough but still, I need help to understand some things. Things such
> > > > as what I should do *when the time comes* to let him know that I would
> > > > not be interested in a fling and so if he already knows that it would
> > > > be no more than a fling, he needs not to as me out. Of course, there
> > > > are other things but those questions wouldn't arise unless things
> > > > progress...
>
> > > > Please don't tell me to just tell it like they way I am saying here.
> > > > I want to let him know about that ahead of time *as opportunity
> > > > arises* before he approaches me. That way he could make an informed
> > > > decision and I get to keep the instructor-student friendship I have
> > > > with him.
>
> > > As a former university lecturer, I have grave issues with an account
> > > of a lecturer trying to get a student into a sexual relationship. It
> > > is unethical, and probably has more to do with power-relations than
> > > genuine caring between equals. I would be very suspicious of this man,
> > > if I were you. I've seen an awful lot of student-teacher relationships
> > > hit the wall, with students feeling they have to drop out of school
> > > and lecturers dragged before ethics committees. Not good.
>
> > > -Elizabeth
>
> > Thank you. I has started wondering whether he is just trying to see
> > whether he gets a female student fall for him. It would be an ego
> > boost for him for sure. I am not going to make myself available
> > while I am his student. If he is genuinely interested in me, he knows
> > how to reach me after i am done with the classes.
>
> Good. First sensible thing I've heard.
Good but may be not too practical but if it is risky (for him), then
that's what we'd have to do provided that I was right completely that
he wasn't after just getting into my pants which I now know for sure
that he would never use me like that. I knew, given his character, but
one could never be sure and hence I was wondering ... but now,
everything is good. Friendship is getting more solid. With or without
the possibility of more - things change in people's life and so who
knows whether he or I could afford to get involved romantically, this
friendship is somehting I will always value.
>
> JustGB- Hide quoted text -
curiousp...@gmail.com
> I think that you are the perfect illustration of the kind of woman
> decent men avoid like the plague.
>
> You are not looking for a relationship, you are looking for a man to
> use / abuse. Any man will do: after you split, you went for the next
> available one, disregarding any ethical considerations in the process.
> You don't even find him attractive: in all your pages of posts, you
> have not written a single comment about that part. You have nothing to
> offer: you *assume* that you are attractive and he would "not be
> foolish enough to pass that opportunity". You do not like men and you
> do not like sex, as your comments about men or prostitutes show.
>
> And you want him to commit before you make any move. You offer the
> proverbial cat in the bag.
>
> I have seen this before from other women (and sometimes from men as
> well). Under the catchall phrase of "genuine interest in finding a
> long-term relationship", you really mean that you would control the
> relationship and he would be dependent (legally, psychologically or
> else). You said that "you will never invest emotionally to any man and
> allow yourself to get hurt again unless you knew that*he* would have
> genuine interest". As if emotions could be turned off and then back
> on. What you really mean is that you won't invest any emotion, ever.
> You want the strategically advantageous position where he is
> emotionally invested and controlled, and you are detached and
> controlling.
>
> What you described in all those pages is the essence of an abusive
> relationship where you would have the upper hand.
>
> Except that the only men who will respond to such a blatantly
> unbalanced offer are either naive, stupid or dishonest. And in a few
> years you are going to wonder why you only date the wrong person.
>
> Besides, in just a few posts you managed to demonstrate that you are:
> -egocentric and self-centered
> -not interested in sex or romance
> -unwilling to take risks (this is why you want our opinion)
> -not very bright (unable to judge your ex ant your teacher hidden
> motives and unable to recognise humour or sarcasm in the posts)
> -absolutely not generous (unwilling to offer anything unless you are
> sure to get something of greater value in exchange)
> -foul-tempered (by insulting two members of the group)
> -prejudiced against men, sex workers, elderly or overweight people
> -dismissive of the experience of people in a position of knowing
> better (e.g. MD).
>
> You are such an extreme example that I almost doubt that you are real
> (hint: this is *sarcasm*).
Blah..blah..blah..
Tom Allen
I missed this post earlier, but I believe that you sum things up rather
well, at least from the perspective of what Ms. Curious has written.
> Blah..blah..blah..
And Ms. Curious proves your point by way of example...
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself... I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
toramjero
Eh, your conversation is improving!
curiousp...@gmail.com
> darklily wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 6:13 pm, curiousperson...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> I suggest that you re-read my original post in this thread. If you
> >> can't participate in the topics at hand, at least be civilized enough
> >> to shut up instead of trying to fill your empty life with stupid
> >> questions to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I suggest you learn how to write coherently and avoid run-on
> > sentences.Watch your verb tenses as well. If you could manage that
> > perhaps I wouldn't have to ask questions. Your writing also tends to
> > be convoluted. How you managed a higher degree is unfathomable. I know
> > my thesis committee wouldn't have stood for it.
>
> > I merely asked for clarification.
>
> My assumption was that English is not her first language. She has some
> odd phrasings that suggest she learned it later on.
>
> > But now...go screw yourself. You're the most infantile adult that I've
> > come across. Are you sure you aren't a teenager or young college
> > student? You sure as hell are acting like one. Maybe that's why there
> > are no decent men in your life...they are smart enough to run when
> > they see you coming. Nobody wants to have a relationship with someone
> > who acts like a child.
>
> I was trying to suggest that same thing, but I was being nicer about it.
> Of course, she hasn't told me that I'm retarded or that I have no life.
Because you are not retarded.
>
> See, the whole situation is too high-school for me. Once you're past
> your teens, then stop playing games. Just ask somebody out, for cry eye!
> Why all the subterfuge and analyzing?
It is easy to see it as high-school but you are forgetting that he is
my instructor and that it is him who is at stake with his boss and I
don't want to do anything that would cause him awkardness and hence I
needed to know that it would be okay with him for me to ask him out
just as * in his case* - if he was interested in me, it would be okay
with me if he were to show any interest. So, we had no choice but do
that high-school thing. But we are not high-schoolers and hence it's
all over now, taking barely 2 days of all 5 weeks. Now, the whole
calss probably think she and I are such buddies and that we know each
other well as friends. I sensed since last semester - last course was
8 weeks course that started in late March - that that was what he
wanted.
> And the offhand comment that nobody gets access to her pants until they
> are willing to make a commitment?
I did NOT say that. What I said was that if someone already knew that
there's no hope for long term, then no need to bother me.
> What the hell does that mean? You're gonna get married or you're not.
> But what's that got to do with sex?
I don't want to get engaed with him beyond friendship unless we both
genuinely are interested in dating for a meaningful relationshiop. In
another word, I don't want to be having a sexual relationship with him
while he is using a dating service in search of *the perfect women*
for him. That's just my criteria. I don't want to be used for sex.
Someone tried to that late summer last year, after I explicity told
him clearly. That's just not fair. I don't need that.
>
> > Darklily (empty life...*snerk*...yeah, right)
>
> Yeah, empty. Now I know why you haven't been able to fit me in...
If that *you* refers to me, then you are no different than the
majority of men.
>
> --
> Tom Allen
>
> http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com/
>
> "I don't have multiple orgasms, myself. I am, however, known to be a
> carrier."- Hide quoted text -
toramjero
Sorry, I did not intend to upset you or anyone else. I should have
made it clear that this was my limited view of the world.
>
>
> > You seem to imply that casual sex is a common occurence. Is it?
>
> Pretty common these days, I think.
Here again, I should have explained it better.
What I have seen in my life is the following:
-women who behave like "curiousperson" and are actually only
interested in the commitment, not really in sex or romance. As I
explained, they usually have hidden motives.
-women who behave more normally, are interested in finding a partner,
but first go to the process of getting to know each other (without
sex), then mutually decide that they are made for each other and,
after some kind of agreement of exclusivity, decide to go to the last
step and have sex. I don't call that casual sex.
-men to lie to get into a woman's pants. This is indeed usually short-
term sex, and you may call it casual.
What I have never seen or heard of is:
-people who meet, but know that they will not stay together (for
example, because they are on a trip), and stil decide to take
advantage of the occasion, because a night together is still better
than a night alone, even if you are not going to see each other
afterwards. Actually, I have (rarely) but only in the context of
holidays flings and only for young adults.
-women who seek to meet someone for the explicite purpose of sex
-sexual arrangements like "fuck buddies", etc...
Even in the context of cheating, I have only heard of women who look
for an emotional relationship and not, for example, of women
dissatisfied with their main partner abilities looking for a
supplement.
I know that those behaviours exist. For example, people using swinger
clubs must somewhat be looking for pure physical satisfaction. But I
think that these behaviours are relatively rare. I read about them, or
see them in movies, etc... but I think that this is more hype than
substance.
Has this been your experience as well? If, for example, you consider
100 of your friends, how many do you think have sought casual sex in
the above sense at some point in their life? When I think about the
woman I know, I would estimate the figure to be very low, perhaps less
than 1 in 100. Does your experience differ? I am asking because a
newsgroup like this one is simple way to have a point of view of
people living in very different environments.
Of course, I don't KNOW. I did not walk around with a questionnaire
asking people. But I hear constantly remarks like "women need to have
an emotional connection to enjoy sex" or "men only want to go in
women's pant, but women do not appreciate that", etc...
toramjero
> toramjero wrote:
> > Something else I just thought about. "curiousperson", which is
> > decidely a good illustration for a certain type of women, wrote in her
> > first post that "she knew for sure that
> > he is not foolish enough to pass this opportunity". I should say that
> > I have witnessed this behaviour in other cases: this category of women
> > assume that they just need to snap their fingers and men would be
> > foolish not to pass the opportunity of them offering sex.
>
> > Maybe I am foolish, but with the kind of character "curiousperson" has
> > shown on this thread, I think I would pass the opportunity even if she
> > looked like a supermodel. I don't know about other men. I even don't
> > know whether or not finding a reasonably attractive man for casual sex
> > is easy or not for reasonably attractive women.
>
> Congratulations on having your consciousness raised.
>
Thanks, but you are a tad late. The first time I met a woman playing
this sort of game was 20 years ago and yes, I passed the opportunity.
> Some women, acting on patterns that they have learned in our culture -
> still treat sex as some kind of commodity. There have been a lot of
> changes in the last fifty years, most of them for the good, IMO. Men and
> women no longer have to do the dance in which he pursues something that
> she doesn't care about, except as a commodity for him.
>
> Apparently you still know quite a few women who are holdouts, but in
> general that is changing.
>
I don't see how it could change. Sure, there have been changes in the
past 50 years regarding sexuality. The most relevant to the discussion
here being in summary that women have the right to expect good sex,
orgasm, etc... They are also allowed to work on improving their
pleasure without being automatically labelled in deprecative ways.
But as long as women (some of them) will believe (rightly or not) that
sex is very easy to get everywhere, they are not likely to attach much
value to it or to invest a lot of effort in it. To take an analogy: if
you could get prepared food for free whenever you wanted, you would
probably never go into the trouble of learning to cook or growing your
own vegetables, whatever.
And, true or not, the idea that sex is easy to get for women is still
very prevalent. Even worse: the prevalent idea is that sex is not only
easy to get but worthless, and that women should concentrate on the
difficult task to find "Mr Right" and keep him instead. We have seen
the effects in this thread.
(Note that women do make efforts to attract "Mr Right", the fashion
and cosmetics industry live out of it. I am not denying that.)
We can of course imagine different scenarios where a woman would be
motivated to invest sizable efforts to get sex (we would have to
imagine a type of sex that would both be valuable and difficult to
get), but I can't think of any common situation. And as long as sex
(or more specifically casual, recreative sex) will be considered so
easy to get that it is basically worthless, you will still find many
women who treat it as a commodity.
> It's odd that Ms. Curious comes to a sexuality group in order to talk
> about how to attract a man in that context.
>
> > I wonder if there are women who think differently, who find it
> > difficult to get sex (or the type of sex they want) and, conversely,
> > invest efforts to get it and, as a consequence, find sex to be
> > something of value. A bit like men.
>
> We've had this discussion in the past, but the answer isn't a simple
> "yes' or "no." Most women still tend to be a bit more picky about the
> men with whom they have sex, if only out of issues of safety and
> well-being.
>
Being picky or not has nothing to do with it. Some men are picky about
their women, yet are ready to invest lots of efforts to seduce them.
Many women who are picky about their men still believe that they would
jump at their feet when they snap their fingers. "curiousperson" is a
good example of this behaviour.
It doesn't have anything to do with being picky, it only has to do
with the belief that sex is so easy to get that it is basically
worthless.
Of course, we can imagine that the situation could go too far as well.
As a not so successful man, I found that casual, recreative sex is so
difficult to get that it is almost impossible. So I grew discouraged
and gave up at a point.
Serene Vannoy
> On Oct 10, 12:31 pm, -Elizabeth- <eratedr...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 2:43 pm, toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> Men need to demonstrate that they find the woman "unique" (or
>>> in other words that they are interested in just this one woman, and
>>> won't be interested in any other one as long as they will form a
>>> couple). Women never ask for sex.
>> I do, and I'm a woman. I think you'll need to reassess your
>> understanding of women as a collective noun.
>>
>
>
> Sorry, I did not intend to upset you or anyone else. I should have
> made it clear that this was my limited view of the world.
Part of why your statement is being disagreed with (it doesn't appear to
me that Elizabeth was upset, nor am I -- disagreement doesn't
necessarily mean anger) is the language you used. "Women never ask for
sex" is just asking for several counterdatapoints -- enough so that it's
a running joke on this newsgroup: "Everyone's different." "I'm not!"
>>> You seem to imply that casual sex is a common occurence. Is it?
>> Pretty common these days, I think.
>
>
> Here again, I should have explained it better.
>
> What I have seen in my life is the following:
> -women who behave like "curiousperson" and are actually only
> interested in the commitment, not really in sex or romance. As I
> explained, they usually have hidden motives.
> -women who behave more normally, are interested in finding a partner,
> but first go to the process of getting to know each other (without
> sex), then mutually decide that they are made for each other and,
> after some kind of agreement of exclusivity, decide to go to the last
> step and have sex. I don't call that casual sex.
> -men to lie to get into a woman's pants. This is indeed usually short-
> term sex, and you may call it casual.
>
> What I have never seen or heard of is:
> -people who meet, but know that they will not stay together (for
> example, because they are on a trip), and stil decide to take
> advantage of the occasion, because a night together is still better
> than a night alone, even if you are not going to see each other
> afterwards. Actually, I have (rarely) but only in the context of
> holidays flings and only for young adults.
> -women who seek to meet someone for the explicite purpose of sex
> -sexual arrangements like "fuck buddies", etc...
There are six adults in my family. Of them, four are women, and two are
men. Of that six, three have been to sex parties -- those three are all
women. One has put Craigslist ads up specifically asking for
no-strings-attached sex, and had several good experiences with that --
also a woman. Four have had sex that was not intended to (and didn't)
become a relationship -- two men, two women.
Me, I've had fuckbuddies, and those experiences weren't less valuable to
me than the relationships I've had, because they were what I needed at
the time.
>
> Even in the context of cheating, I have only heard of women who look
> for an emotional relationship and not, for example, of women
> dissatisfied with their main partner abilities looking for a
> supplement.
Well, it's not cheating in my family (because we're poly and we know
about each other's other relationships), but part of why one of my
partners ended up opening up their existing relationship (before they
met me) was that the woman in the partnership wanted sex with different
people, and sex of a different sort from what she was getting within the
relationship.
>
> I know that those behaviours exist. For example, people using swinger
> clubs must somewhat be looking for pure physical satisfaction. But I
> think that these behaviours are relatively rare. I read about them, or
> see them in movies, etc... but I think that this is more hype than
> substance.
And I think the frigid woman who won't put out until she gets a ring is
more hype than substance. People are just so variable.
>
> Has this been your experience as well? If, for example, you consider
> 100 of your friends, how many do you think have sought casual sex in
> the above sense at some point in their life?
Actually, most of them, but I run in explicitly sex-friendly circles,
and I like it that way. Sex parties are not my speed, but I don't think
I know more than one or two women in person who haven't attended them.
> When I think about the
> woman I know, I would estimate the figure to be very low, perhaps less
> than 1 in 100. Does your experience differ? I am asking because a
> newsgroup like this one is simple way to have a point of view of
> people living in very different environments.
>
>
> Of course, I don't KNOW. I did not walk around with a questionnaire
> asking people. But I hear constantly remarks like "women need to have
> an emotional connection to enjoy sex" or "men only want to go in
> women's pant, but women do not appreciate that", etc...
>
There's a morsel of truth to that, but there's a morsel of truth to the
opposite statements, too.
(For what it's worth, I've had twice the number of sex partners of
either of my male partner, and one of the women in our family has had
far more, if you count one-night stands.)
Serene
--
"I am an agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at
the bottom of the garden." -- Richard Dawkins
suzee
Don't flatter yourself. Tom was addressing darklily. We longtimers tease
a lot around here.
sue
Tom Allen
> On Oct 9, 12:06 pm, Tom Allen <taomli...@SPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> I was trying to suggest that same thing, but I was being nicer about it.
>> Of course, she hasn't told me that I'm retarded or that I have no life.
>
> Because you are not retarded.
It's been my own observation that most of the people on this group are
not retarded. But then, I've only been participating for the last
decade, so I could be wrong.
>> See, the whole situation is too high-school for me. Once you're past
>> your teens, then stop playing games. Just ask somebody out, for cry eye!
>> Why all the subterfuge and analyzing?
>
> It is easy to see it as high-school but you are forgetting that he is
> my instructor and that it is him who is at stake with his boss and I
> don't want to do anything that would cause him awkardness and hence I
> needed to know that it would be okay with him for me to ask him out
> just as * in his case* - if he was interested in me, it would be okay
> with me if he were to show any interest. So, we had no choice but do
> that high-school thing. But we are not high-schoolers and hence it's
> all over now, taking barely 2 days of all 5 weeks. Now, the whole
> calss probably think she and I are such buddies and that we know each
> other well as friends. I sensed since last semester - last course was
> 8 weeks course that started in late March - that that was what he
> wanted.
Aaauuurrrgghh! My brain hurts!
Don't you see that this is still high school? You're both adults, right?
Look how easy this is:
CP7: Hi, would you like to go our for coffee this afternoon?
Prof:
a) Sure, I'd love to. I hate looking at those ugly guys and fat women in
my class, this would be a nice treat.
... or
b) I'm sorry, but since you're still a student, that would be an issue
in my department. But the semester is almost over, so let's talk again
in a couple of months.
... or
c) I'd love to. There is a small issue about me dating a student, but
since you're an old broad, nobody will really care. Would you like to go
to Starfucks or Dunkin?
Seriously, what is wrong with that? It's simple, it gets to the point,
and now the both of you don't have to worry about the game playing.
Sheesh.
>> And the offhand comment that nobody gets access to her pants until they
>> are willing to make a commitment?
>
> I did NOT say that. What I said was that if someone already knew that
> there's no hope for long term, then no need to bother me.
::shrugs::
Whatever. Interestingly, this goes along with the point that Jero was
trying to make: you're commoditizing sex, or perhaps trading it for an
emotional commitment of some sort.
The interesting thing is that one needs to define "long term." A year? A
month? 9-1//2 weeks?
>> What the hell does that mean? You're gonna get married or you're not.
>> But what's that got to do with sex?
>
> I don't want to get engaed with him beyond friendship unless we both
> genuinely are interested in dating for a meaningful relationshiop. In
> another word, I don't want to be having a sexual relationship with him
> while he is using a dating service in search of *the perfect women*
> for him. That's just my criteria. I don't want to be used for sex.
> Someone tried to that late summer last year, after I explicity told
> him clearly. That's just not fair. I don't need that.
That's strange. So, you tell somebody that you're not going to have sex
with them unless they are going to make a commitment. How long is a
commitment? Life?
And what if they do commit and after a few months, they decide that they
can't take your game playing and mental quirks? If they leave, is that
still unfair?
>>> Darklily (empty life...*snerk*...yeah, right)
>> Yeah, empty. Now I know why you haven't been able to fit me in...
> If that *you* refers to me, then you are no different than the
> majority of men.
::blink blink::
You are screwed up on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin.
--
Tom Allen
http://tom-allen.livejournal.com/
toramjero
This is an interesting data point, but I still believe this behaviour
to be extremely rare. At least this has been my experience. Now, I
remember that you live amongst very sex-positive environments, and
that explains why you have a different view of the world. To take a
comparison: if you worked at Nasa, you would write that 90% of your
friends are rocket scientists. That does not mean that everyone in
America is a rocket scientist...
>
> > Even in the context of cheating, I have only heard of women who look
> > for an emotional relationship and not, for example, of women
> > dissatisfied with their main partner abilities looking for a
> > supplement.
>
> Well, it's not cheating in my family (because we're poly and we know
> about each other's other relationships), but part of why one of my
> partners ended up opening up their existing relationship (before they
> met me) was that the woman in the partnership wanted sex with different
> people, and sex of a different sort from what she was getting within the
> relationship.
>
>
>
> > I know that those behaviours exist. For example, people using swinger
> > clubs must somewhat be looking for pure physical satisfaction. But I
> > think that these behaviours are relatively rare. I read about them, or
> > see them in movies, etc... but I think that this is more hype than
> > substance.
>
> And I think the frigid woman who won't put out until she gets a ring is
> more hype than substance. People are just so variable.
>
>
What is more hype than substance is, in my opinion, the articles I
read in the press, or what is presented in movies. I have no comment
about the behaviour as such. How could I? I don't have the experience,
so I don't know anything about practicing casual sex in any form
(clubs, fuck buddies, etc...).
About women " won't put out until she gets a ring", I have some
experience about that, and my opinion about them is rather negative.
But I think that this is clear from my other posts in this thread.
>
> > Has this been your experience as well? If, for example, you consider
> > 100 of your friends, how many do you think have sought casual sex in
> > the above sense at some point in their life?
>
> Actually, most of them, but I run in explicitly sex-friendly circles,
> and I like it that way. Sex parties are not my speed, but I don't think
> I know more than one or two women in person who haven't attended them.
>
So you obviously live in an environment which is very different to the
one I know. Just out of curiosity, can you describe a little bit how
relationships work in this type of environment? This would allow me to
have a clearer idea.
Serene Vannoy
> On Oct 12, 3:32 am, Serene Vannoy <ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
>> There are six adults in my family. Of them, four are women, and two are
>> men. Of that six, three have been to sex parties -- those three are all
>> women. One has put Craigslist ads up specifically asking for
>> no-strings-attached sex, and had several good experiences with that --
>> also a woman. Four have had sex that was not intended to (and didn't)
>> become a relationship -- two men, two women.
>>
>> Me, I've had fuckbuddies, and those experiences weren't less valuable to
>> me than the relationships I've had, because they were what I needed at
>> the time.
>>
>>
>
> This is an interesting data point, but I still believe this behaviour
> to be extremely rare. At least this has been my experience. Now, I
> remember that you live amongst very sex-positive environments, and
> that explains why you have a different view of the world. To take a
> comparison: if you worked at Nasa, you would write that 90% of your
> friends are rocket scientists. That does not mean that everyone in
> America is a rocket scientist...
No, but nor does it mean "people are NEVER rocket scientists", which is
using the analogy to fit your original statement.
>>> Has this been your experience as well? If, for example, you consider
>>> 100 of your friends, how many do you think have sought casual sex in
>>> the above sense at some point in their life?
>> Actually, most of them, but I run in explicitly sex-friendly circles,
>> and I like it that way. Sex parties are not my speed, but I don't think
>> I know more than one or two women in person who haven't attended them.
>>
>
> So you obviously live in an environment which is very different to the
> one I know. Just out of curiosity, can you describe a little bit how
> relationships work in this type of environment? This would allow me to
> have a clearer idea.
They work the way relationships work. I'm not sure what you're asking.
But if I live in an environment different from yours, you can be sure
there are lots of OTHER environments different from yours, so you should
probably give up your idea that your environment, and not mine or
someone else's, is the norm.
toramjero
> toramjero wrote:
> > On Oct 12, 3:32 am, Serene Vannoy <ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
> >> There are six adults in my family. Of them, four are women, and two are
> >> men. Of that six, three have been to sex parties -- those three are all
> >> women. One has put Craigslist ads up specifically asking for
> >> no-strings-attached sex, and had several good experiences with that --
> >> also a woman. Four have had sex that was not intended to (and didn't)
> >> become a relationship -- two men, two women.
>
> >> Me, I've had fuckbuddies, and those experiences weren't less valuable to
> >> me than the relationships I've had, because they were what I needed at
> >> the time.
>
> > This is an interesting data point, but I still believe this behaviour
> > to be extremely rare. At least this has been my experience. Now, I
> > remember that you live amongst very sex-positive environments, and
> > that explains why you have a different view of the world. To take a
> > comparison: if you worked at Nasa, you would write that 90% of your
> > friends are rocket scientists. That does not mean that everyone in
> > America is a rocket scientist...
>
> No, but nor does it mean "people are NEVER rocket scientists", which is
> using the analogy to fit your original statement.
>
Hey, I did not say that women are NEVER interested in sex outside of
relationships either! I just said that they are rare, especially
around me.
> >>> Has this been your experience as well? If, for example, you consider
> >>> 100 of your friends, how many do you think have sought casual sex in
> >>> the above sense at some point in their life?
> >> Actually, most of them, but I run in explicitly sex-friendly circles,
> >> and I like it that way. Sex parties are not my speed, but I don't think
> >> I know more than one or two women in person who haven't attended them.
>
> > So you obviously live in an environment which is very different to the
> > one I know. Just out of curiosity, can you describe a little bit how
> > relationships work in this type of environment? This would allow me to
> > have a clearer idea.
>
> They work the way relationships work. I'm not sure what you're asking.
> But if I live in an environment different from yours, you can be sure
> there are lots of OTHER environments different from yours, so you should
> probably give up your idea that your environment, and not mine or
> someone else's, is the norm.
>
I am pretty sure that your environment is not the norm. I suspect that
mine is relatively close to the norm, but indeed I do not know. I
don't think that there are thousands of different approaches to
sexuality, you are either open minded or not.
I see that my question about relationships was not clear. I'll give
some examples of how relationships work for me, as a monogamous
person, and what I expect to be a bit different. You can correct me,
or write new ideas.
For me, the main drawback of monogamy is that you can't really talk
about quite a few things. After a while, you know what your partner
likes and dislikes, and you know that you can't really talk about what
(s)he dislikes. This makes it very difficult to evolve after a few
years.
You can't talk about some things your partner does not like, because
your partner is the only person who is supposed to help you get them.
I'll take an example, chosen to be as simple as possible. Suppose that
he would like to try anal sex and she is strongly against it. When it
is established that it is beyond her limits, continuing to talk about
it would be harassment. Each time he brings it back to the table, he
are assumed to try to break her limits. It automatically becomes a
conflict. So he doesn't talk about it any more, out of respect to her
limits. (An hypothetical example, I don't particularly like anal sex).
Now, when you have more than one partner, that problem is out of the
way (I suppose): there is always the possibility that the other
partner is more willing, you are not the only person who is
responsible to fulfill your partner's needs or fantasies. To come back
to the example, if he talks about anal sex, she will not automatically
assume that he is asking to reconsider her position again. Maybe he
practices that with the other women. Does that make sense?
OTOH, I can imagine that other conflicts arise in multiple
relationships, maybe on what you are allowed to do with the other
partner (for example, I do not know).
Another drawback of monogamy, or specifically monogamy combined with
lack of experience (which is my problem), is that, frankly, I am
running out of ideas. I suppose that if you have many partners, you
may learn new practices from some of them, which are in turn accepted
(or not) by other partners. I am more or less in the position of
having brought all my ideas over the years, knowing which ones are
acceptable and which ones are not, and sitting on the pile which has
been accepted.
I also said that I don't live in a very sex positive environment. A
specific drawback of this is that, as a man, I am constantly accused
of having hidden motives if I talk about sex and I resent that. For
example, one day threesomes came to be the subject of the discussion.
It was automatically assumed that as a man, I could only be interested
in the double female sort, by pure egoistic interest. Now: I would not
know what to do with two women whereas, for obvious physiological
reasons, the double male sort appears to be much easier to arrange. So
if I fantasize about threesomes, I actually find it easier to
visualize the double male sort. Yet, because I am a man, I am
automatically supposed to have simple egoistic motives. You'll also
find similar accusations in "curiousperson" posts: she assumes that
all men are only interested in having short term sex, with as little
investment as possible and are prepared to lie for that. Now: some men
are like that, but those assumptions end up to be caricatural, and I
don't particularly like to be considered like a caricature.
Tom Allen
> On Oct 12, 5:13 pm, Serene Vannoy <ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
>> They work the way relationships work. I'm not sure what you're asking.
>> But if I live in an environment different from yours, you can be sure
>> there are lots of OTHER environments different from yours, so you should
>> probably give up your idea that your environment, and not mine or
>> someone else's, is the norm.
>>
>
> I am pretty sure that your environment is not the norm. I suspect that
> mine is relatively close to the norm, but indeed I do not know. I
> don't think that there are thousands of different approaches to
> sexuality, you are either open minded or not.
We generally get our ideas of "norm" form tv and movies, and form our
other friends - who are usually watching the same tv, movies, etc., that
we are.
But there *are* a lot of approaches to sexuality, Tor. One might be
open-minded about, say, poly relationships, but be very close-minded
about BDSM. Or one might be open minded wrt bondage, but not to
electical play.
> For me, the main drawback of monogamy is that you can't really talk
> about quite a few things. After a while, you know what your partner
> likes and dislikes, and you know that you can't really talk about what
> (s)he dislikes. This makes it very difficult to evolve after a few
> years.
I can attest that this is true, at least for many people.
However, I have also learned that this should not keep you from
continuing to open up the subject. Your partner can claim "harassment"
only if it's true. The next thing is to discuss why she feels harassed,
and what could be a happy medium for the both of you. This may not take
place over one or two conversations. You may not be able to frame the
discussion properly, either, so be prepared to buy some books on the
subject, preferably books that you can give to your partner for the both
of you to read.
> You can't talk about some things your partner does not like, because
> your partner is the only person who is supposed to help you get them.
Which is why it's important to discuss what would be reasonable middle
ground.
> So he doesn't talk about it any more, out of respect to her
> limits. (An hypothetical example, I don't particularly like anal sex).
Me neither. Do you find that you're sore for a couple of days afterward?
Maybe I'm doing it wrong.
> I also said that I don't live in a very sex positive environment. A
> specific drawback of this is that, as a man, I am constantly accused
> of having hidden motives if I talk about sex and I resent that.
It's frustrating, but you deal with it by refusing to get defensive.
Just shrug and let them think what they will.
Actually, my way of dealing with it is to go completely over the top.
"What? Only two women? Hell, that's not even a warm-up!"
> Now: I would not
> know what to do with two women whereas, for obvious physiological
> reasons, the double male sort appears to be much easier to arrange.
::blink blink::
It's *really* not too difficult to figure out. In fact, IME, things sort
of work out in the end.
> Now: some men
> are like that, but those assumptions end up to be caricatural, and I
> don't particularly like to be considered like a caricature.
I dont' mind. In fact, I kind of egg them on :-\
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself... I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
Serene Vannoy
What you said is "never" -- "Women never ask for sex" is a direct quote.
>
>>>>> Has this been your experience as well? If, for example, you consider
>>>>> 100 of your friends, how many do you think have sought casual sex in
>>>>> the above sense at some point in their life?
>>>> Actually, most of them, but I run in explicitly sex-friendly circles,
>>>> and I like it that way. Sex parties are not my speed, but I don't think
>>>> I know more than one or two women in person who haven't attended them.
>>> So you obviously live in an environment which is very different to the
>>> one I know. Just out of curiosity, can you describe a little bit how
>>> relationships work in this type of environment? This would allow me to
>>> have a clearer idea.
>> They work the way relationships work. I'm not sure what you're asking.
>> But if I live in an environment different from yours, you can be sure
>> there are lots of OTHER environments different from yours, so you should
>> probably give up your idea that your environment, and not mine or
>> someone else's, is the norm.
>>
>
> I am pretty sure that your environment is not the norm. I suspect that
> mine is relatively close to the norm, but indeed I do not know. I
> don't think that there are thousands of different approaches to
> sexuality, you are either open minded or not.
I think that's simplistic of you, but you've decided "I don't know if
I'm right, but I'm right", so I'm not sure you're actually listening at
this point. (I'm not trying to insult you, just explaining how it looks
from here.)
toramjero
> toramjero wrote:
> > On Oct 12, 5:13 pm, Serene Vannoy <ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
> >> They work the way relationships work. I'm not sure what you're asking.
> >> But if I live in an environment different from yours, you can be sure
> >> there are lots of OTHER environments different from yours, so you should
> >> probably give up your idea that your environment, and not mine or
> >> someone else's, is the norm.
>
> > I am pretty sure that your environment is not the norm. I suspect that
> > mine is relatively close to the norm, but indeed I do not know. I
> > don't think that there are thousands of different approaches to
> > sexuality, you are either open minded or not.
>
> We generally get our ideas of "norm" form tv and movies, and form our
> other friends - who are usually watching the same tv, movies, etc., that
> we are.
>
> But there *are* a lot of approaches to sexuality, Tor. One might be
> open-minded about, say, poly relationships, but be very close-minded
> about BDSM. Or one might be open minded wrt bondage, but not to
> electical play.
>
Point taken. I had not realised that. I thought that people were
either relatively closed or relatively tolerant. I find it somewhat
strange that some people can be open minded about mutiple
relationship, but not accept bondage (as an example). Why? Because, I
thought that either people consider sex as a recreative, fun activity
or not.
> > For me, the main drawback of monogamy is that you can't really talk
> > about quite a few things. After a while, you know what your partner
> > likes and dislikes, and you know that you can't really talk about what
> > (s)he dislikes. This makes it very difficult to evolve after a few
> > years.
>
> I can attest that this is true, at least for many people.
>
> However, I have also learned that this should not keep you from
> continuing to open up the subject. Your partner can claim "harassment"
> only if it's true. The next thing is to discuss why she feels harassed,
> and what could be a happy medium for the both of you. This may not take
> place over one or two conversations. You may not be able to frame the
> discussion properly, either, so be prepared to buy some books on the
> subject, preferably books that you can give to your partner for the both
> of you to read.
>
I am not harassing my partner! The problem, as I see it, is that there
is not necessarily an happy medium. To use the same example again:
either you have a penis in your butt, or not. What would the middle
ground be?
Of course, there *are* things for which a compromise is possible. Say,
if you want light and your partner prefers it dark, you can compromise
on a single candle, or maybe you can find out that your partner does
not like the light because she concentrates better in darkness and
find a different solution, etc... But not always. The point is, in
monogamous relationships, there is no way out for those points,
whatever they are, where a compromise is not an option. And if your
partner has strong feelings about them, merely talking about them
hurts their feeling. First, because by having a very different opinion
on points which are of importance to your partner (or there would not
be strong feelings), you insist on a sore point. Because this is your
only partner, you have a very high emotional investment, and your
expect a very high level of agreement. Second, as I noted, because
this partner is supposed to be the only solution between you and your
desires, and each talk brings that problem back.
> > You can't talk about some things your partner does not like, because
> > your partner is the only person who is supposed to help you get them.
>
> Which is why it's important to discuss what would be reasonable middle
> ground.
>
> > So he doesn't talk about it any more, out of respect to her
> > limits. (An hypothetical example, I don't particularly like anal sex).
>
> Me neither. Do you find that you're sore for a couple of days afterward?
> Maybe I'm doing it wrong.
>
Use more lubricant.
> > I also said that I don't live in a very sex positive environment. A
> > specific drawback of this is that, as a man, I am constantly accused
> > of having hidden motives if I talk about sex and I resent that.
>
> It's frustrating, but you deal with it by refusing to get defensive.
> Just shrug and let them think what they will.
>
> Actually, my way of dealing with it is to go completely over the top.
> "What? Only two women? Hell, that's not even a warm-up!"
>
Oh, I can deal with it all right. It is just that having to deal with
it is an annoyance.
> > Now: I would not
> > know what to do with two women whereas, for obvious physiological
> > reasons, the double male sort appears to be much easier to arrange.
>
> ::blink blink::
> It's *really* not too difficult to figure out. In fact, IME, things sort
> of work out in the end.
>
"IME"? You said that you are in a one to one relationship, didn't you?
> > Now: some men
> > are like that, but those assumptions end up to be caricatural, and I
> > don't particularly like to be considered like a caricature.
>
> I dont' mind. In fact, I kind of egg them on :-\
>
> --
> Tom Allenhttp://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
toramjero
I was talking about the women I know, I thoght that this was clear in
the context. Anyway, I suggest that we leave the discussion at this,
because I find it difficult to make myself understood, and I seem to
upset you even when I don't want to.
>
> >
> >>>>> Has this been your experience as well? If, for example, you consider
> >>>>> 100 of your friends, how many do you think have sought casual sex in
> >>>>> the above sense at some point in their life?
> >>>> Actually, most of them, but I run in explicitly sex-friendly circles,
> >>>> and I like it that way. Sex parties are not my speed, but I don't think
> >>>> I know more than one or two women in person who haven't attended them.
> >>> So you obviously live in an environment which is very different to the
> >>> one I know. Just out of curiosity, can you describe a little bit how
> >>> relationships work in this type of environment? This would allow me to
> >>> have a clearer idea.
> >> They work the way relationships work. I'm not sure what you're asking.
> >> But if I live in an environment different from yours, you can be sure
> >> there are lots of OTHER environments different from yours, so you should
> >> probably give up your idea that your environment, and not mine or
> >> someone else's, is the norm.
> >>
> >
> > I am pretty sure that your environment is not the norm. I suspect that
> > mine is relatively close to the norm, but indeed I do not know. I
> > don't think that there are thousands of different approaches to
> > sexuality, you are either open minded or not.
>
> I think that's simplistic of you, but you've decided "I don't know if
> I'm right, but I'm right", so I'm not sure you're actually listening at
> this point. (I'm not trying to insult you, just explaining how it looks
> from here.)
>
It is fine if you don't want to answer the questions I asked. This is
your private life and I respect that. I also realise that I should not
have used the word "norm". I was not trying to say that the way of
living I know was better or superior, just more prevalent.
Serene Vannoy
> I am not harassing my partner! The problem, as I see it, is that there
> is not necessarily an happy medium. To use the same example again:
> either you have a penis in your butt, or not. What would the middle
> ground be?
A tongue on the anus. A finger. A small dildo. Reading porn involving
anal sex and seeing if the person gets aroused. That's just off the top
of my head. So few things in this world are as black and white as I
think you think they are.
Serene Vannoy
> Serene Vannoy wrote:
>> toramjero wrote:
>>> Hey, I did not say that women are NEVER interested in sex outside of
>>> relationships either! I just said that they are rare, especially
>>> around me.
>> What you said is "never" -- "Women never ask for sex" is a direct quote.
>
> I was talking about the women I know, I thoght that this was clear in
> the context. Anyway, I suggest that we leave the discussion at this,
> because I find it difficult to make myself understood, and I seem to
> upset you even when I don't want to.
I'm fine with leaving the conversation where it stands, but for the
record, I am not now, nor have I ever been, upset with you.
>> I think that's simplistic of you, but you've decided "I don't know if
>> I'm right, but I'm right", so I'm not sure you're actually listening at
>> this point. (I'm not trying to insult you, just explaining how it looks
>> from here.)
>>
>
> It is fine if you don't want to answer the questions I asked.
I answered your question several times. Is there a particular question
you want me to take another shot at? I mean, I'm a Usenet junky; I could
do this all day.
Tom Allen
> On Oct 12, 9:23 pm, Tom Allen <taomlinS...@MEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> But there *are* a lot of approaches to sexuality, Tor. One might be
>> open-minded about, say, poly relationships, but be very close-minded
>> about BDSM. Or one might be open minded wrt bondage, but not to
>> electical play.
>>
>
> Point taken. I had not realised that. I thought that people were
> either relatively closed or relatively tolerant. I find it somewhat
> strange that some people can be open minded about mutiple
> relationship, but not accept bondage (as an example). Why? Because, I
> thought that either people consider sex as a recreative, fun activity
> or not.
Ah.
When I was younger, I thought the same thing. I believed that sexual
tolerance was a progressive kind of thing; if you were fine with *this*,
then eventually you'd be okay with *that*, simply because it was a
progressive learning experience.
I now see it more like being at a big house party. Some people gravitate
toward the kitchen, others hang out in the living room, some scoot off
to the patio, and a few head into the spare bedrooms. Some people stay
in those rooms the entire night, others wander from room to room, and
some - amazingly - will wander in to a few rooms while denouncing those
in others.
>> However, I have also learned that this should not keep you from
>> continuing to open up the subject. Your partner can claim "harassment"
>> only if it's true. The next thing is to discuss why she feels harassed,
>> and what could be a happy medium for the both of you. This may not take
>> place over one or two conversations. You may not be able to frame the
>> discussion properly, either, so be prepared to buy some books on the
>> subject, preferably books that you can give to your partner for the both
>> of you to read.
>>
>
> I am not harassing my partner! The problem, as I see it, is that there
> is not necessarily an happy medium. To use the same example again:
> either you have a penis in your butt, or not. What would the middle
> ground be?
Dude, relax! I'm not saying that *you* are harassing her, I'm saying
that she may simply believe she's being harassed - until you work out
some kind of baseline for communication.
As to your example, if you want a penis in your butt, then perhaps you
could ask her to start with other objects, or possibly a gloved finger.
If you want to put yours in her butt and she's dead set against it, then
perhaps you could find a sex aid that simulates it (I don't know of
any, but I haven't looked.) Or it's possible that you will not
compromise at all on this point, but you'll be able to work something
out on another.
> The point is, in
> monogamous relationships, there is no way out for those points,
> whatever they are, where a compromise is not an option.
Sadly, that is sometimes true.
> And if your
> partner has strong feelings about them, merely talking about them
> hurts their feeling.
Yes, but so what? Not talking about them hurts your feelings. Point here
being that you can't be afraid to bring up the topics at appropriate
times, or else your partner will beat you into submission simply by
saying "I don't want to talk about this."
I'm not saying that you need to be cruel, of course. I'm saying that you
both have an interest in keeping the relationship going. If you're
always the one to bottle things up, then it's not fair. And certainly,
if nothing else, you're letting off some steam by bringing it to the
surface once in a while.
> First, because by having a very different opinion
> on points which are of importance to your partner (or there would not
> be strong feelings), you insist on a sore point. Because this is your
> only partner, you have a very high emotional investment, and your
> expect a very high level of agreement.
Take note, that the same thing applies to your partner as well. If the
both of you do not have the same degree of investment, then it's not
going to work. However, you while you might expect a high level of
agreement, in fact, it's not always the case. That's when you have to
learn to pick your biggest wants and desires, while letting the others
go. It's not fair, but we all simply don't get everything that we want.
> Second, as I noted, because
> this partner is supposed to be the only solution between you and your
> desires, and each talk brings that problem back.
Then you're doing it wrong. That's why I suggested picking up some books
or visiting websites on those topics - to get a better perspective or a
better way of explaining what you want.
>>> Now: I would not
>>> know what to do with two women whereas, for obvious physiological
>>> reasons, the double male sort appears to be much easier to arrange.
>> ::blink blink::
>> It's *really* not too difficult to figure out. In fact, IME, things sort
>> of work out in the end.
>>
>
> "IME"? You said that you are in a one to one relationship, didn't you?
No, I don't believe that I did. What you probably remember is Serene
refusing my advances because of Mrs. Tom.
The 3,000 mile difference between us might also be a factor.
Yes, I'm in a monogamarriage, but I wasn't *always* married. I did bring
a few things to the party, here.
--
Tom Allen
Tom Allen
> Serene Vannoy wrote:
>> toramjero wrote:
>>> Hey, I did not say that women are NEVER interested in sex outside of
>>> relationships either! I just said that they are rare, especially
>>> around me.
>> What you said is "never" -- "Women never ask for sex" is a direct quote.
>
> I was talking about the women I know, I thoght that this was clear in
> the context. Anyway, I suggest that we leave the discussion at this,
> because I find it difficult to make myself understood, and I seem to
> upset you even when I don't want to.
Tor, while I can't speak for Serene, I suspect that what is going on is
that you're writing in broad generalities and stereotypes, and she is
simply pointing out some counter-examples from her own experience. That
happens a lot around here because SSG tends to attract people who are
sex-positive and who have made a conscious decision to do things that
run counter to general societal norms.
While you may not have actually *meant* "never", you did, in fact, write
it. Serene is (most likely) not upset, she's making a point that you may
need to examine your own beliefs because of the way that you express them.
One thing about hanging around here for any length of time - it cures
you of the "always/never" speech habit.
Serene Vannoy
Oh, is *that* what's happening? I thought YOU were refusing MY advances
because of Mrs. Tom. I get so confused with you monogamous folks. ;-)
>
> The 3,000 mile difference between us might also be a factor.
>
> Yes, I'm in a monogamarriage, but I wasn't *always* married. I did bring
> a few things to the party, here.
Party? Where? I'll bring the chips and guacamole.
gilleebee
>
> One thing about hanging around here for any length of time - it cures you
> of the "always/never" speech habit.
>
> --
> Tom Allen
> http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
>
> "I don't have multiple orgasms, myself... I am, however, known to be a
> carrier."
>
It also teaches one how to look at other perceptions/ lifestyles/ beliefs
with fresh eyes. I even smile at the trolls now ;-)
gilleebee
toramjero
I'll keep in mind to avoid generalizations. I agree that people can be
opem minded about some sexual practices and still relatively
intolerant on others (I just had a striking examplenin another forum).
I am glad that Serene says that she is not upset.
As to monogamous relationships, I basically agree with you that some
sort of compromises is the way to go. And indeed I could not have been
married 20 years without.
This is the ideal case, but as I am sure that you know life is not
always ideal. It sometimes, even often arrives that both members of a
couple hit a point where they cannot agree. Where one has strong
negative feelings that make rational talk difficult and a compromise
impossible. As you said yourself: "we all simply don't get everything
we want".
I was pointing out that this is a problem inherent to monogamous
relationships, that's all. I was reasoning that maybe it is less of a
problem in multiple relationships (because you can get what you want
from more than one person). OTOH, there is also more than one person
to feel upset, so I am not really sure how it works out in the end.
But yes, I agree: in an ideal relationship, whatever the number of
involved people would be, everyone would be open to discuss everyone's
desires and a compromise would be made for the few things which need
it. In the rare cases when one member would find it impossible to make
a workable compromise, the other member(s) could just let it go and
concentrate on enjoying what works.
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> What I have never seen or heard of is:
You have to stop telling yourself that lie. You've seen or heard of it
right here in this newsgroup, but somehow you keep saying that you have
never seen or heard of it. People will respond and say, "I do that,"
or, "That has happened to me," and you respond and say that you need to
clarify and that you've never heard of that. At what point do you admit
that now you have?
> -people who meet, but know that they will not stay together (for
> example, because they are on a trip), and stil decide to take
> advantage of the occasion, because a night together is still better
> than a night alone, even if you are not going to see each other
> afterwards. Actually, I have (rarely) but only in the context of
> holidays flings and only for young adults.
> -women who seek to meet someone for the explicite purpose of sex
> -sexual arrangements like "fuck buddies", etc...
These have happened to me. In fact, all of them except for the thing
you say you've seen rarely. I've never had a holiday fling with a
stranger or anything of that sort. However, I have had women express an
interest in having short-term sexual relationships, I've known women who
sought to meet people for the explicit purposes of sex, and I've had
"friends with benefits" arrangements with women. On the second point,
where you say that you've never heard of women seeking someone for the
explicit purpose of sex, where do you think all the women on sites like
adultfriendfinder.com come from? That's what they're there doing --
looking for no-strings-attached sex.
> Has this been your experience as well? If, for example, you consider
> 100 of your friends, how many do you think have sought casual sex in
> the above sense at some point in their life? When I think about the
> woman I know, I would estimate the figure to be very low, perhaps less
> than 1 in 100. Does your experience differ? I am asking because a
> newsgroup like this one is simple way to have a point of view of
> people living in very different environments.
I suspect that quite a large percentage of the women I know will have
sought what they considered casual sex at some time. Much more
frequent, though, are forms where the woman dates someone to gain a
number of things -- companionship, sex, etc. -- despite knowing that the
person is not "the one". I think that that would be a higher
percentage. But I think probably something close to half of the women I
know have pursued someone at least once simply because they wanted to
have sex with them.
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> Point taken. I had not realised that. I thought that people were
> either relatively closed or relatively tolerant. I find it somewhat
> strange that some people can be open minded about mutiple
> relationship, but not accept bondage (as an example). Why? Because, I
> thought that either people consider sex as a recreative, fun activity
> or not.
I'd like to suggest that terms other than "open minded" or "closed
minded" might be helpful here. I'm an example of someone who is willing
and happy to do a lot of things, but doesn't like power exchange in sex,
and so a good chunk of BDSM is out for me. However, I don't think I'm
closed minded about it. I'm more than willing to talk to people about
it, and I don't object to anyone else doing it, or think they're wrong
for enjoying it. I also am happy to work around ways of satisfying my
partners' desires that relate to BDSM if there is a way that we can work
it out that doesn't read like power exchange to me. And I've usually
discovered that things don't work for me from experience. That doesn't
seem closed minded to me.
It's not that surprising that people like some things and not others.
Take ice cream as an example. You can enjoy butter pecan ice cream but
not like chocolate fudge ice cream. It's not a matter of either liking
all ice cream or none -- thinking that ice cream is either delicious or
not. You yourself said that you don't really enjoy anal sex. Do you
enjoy PIV sex or oral sex? Does your lack of enjoyment of anal sex
affect your enjoyment of those activities at all?
darklily
> Tom Allen wrote:
> > toramjero wrote:
> >> On Oct 12, 9:23 pm, Tom Allen <taomlinS...@MEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>> It's *really* not too difficult to figure out. In fact, IME, things sort
> >>> of work out in the end.
>
> >> "IME"? You said that you are in a one to one relationship, didn't you?
>
> > No, I don't believe that I did. What you probably remember is Serene
> > refusing my advances because of Mrs. Tom.
>
> Oh, is *that* what's happening? I thought YOU were refusing MY advances
> because of Mrs. Tom. I get so confused with you monogamous folks. ;-)
>
>
>
> > The 3,000 mile difference between us might also be a factor.
>
> > Yes, I'm in a monogamarriage, but I wasn't *always* married. I did bring
> > a few things to the party, here.
>
> Party? Where? I'll bring the chips and guacamole.
>
Damn, did I miss the party? I'm afraid I was away and engrossed in
other things. ; )
Looks like I have some reading to catch up on around here. I spent the
last four/five days with M. We were rarely out of each other's
sight...it was interesting. I can't remember the last time I spent
that much time with one person.
We spent the vast majority of the time talking, believe it or not. And
just enough time doing other things that have left me with that slight
soreness in my abs from coming hard/alot. And he patiently taught me
how to play cribbage. I evern won twice (with a bit of help).
Darklily
toramjero
> toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > What I have never seen or heard of is:
>
> You have to stop telling yourself that lie. You've seen or heard of it
> right here in this newsgroup, but somehow you keep saying that you have
> never seen or heard of it. People will respond and say, "I do that,"
> or, "That has happened to me," and you respond and say that you need to
> clarify and that you've never heard of that. At what point do you admit
> that now you have?
>
I find it a bit tiring to have discussions only centered on semantics.
Yes, I have read of it right here in this newsgroup, and in other
internet places. No, I have never heard about it amongst the people I
know. Probably I know the wrong type of people, but that is not the
point. The point is that if you take a billion people (number of
Internet users) and if you let self-select 200 (number of regulars on
s.s.g.) who are interested about sexuality, you will hear about this
kind of behaviour. Fantastic: we have proven that it exists in at
least 200 in a billion people.
However, when I take a sample of 200 people I know, which are mainly
selected in geographical proximity, I find none. If it were 50% of the
population, I would have a fair chance to find 100, wouldn't I?
> > -people who meet, but know that they will not stay together (for
> > example, because they are on a trip), and stil decide to take
> > advantage of the occasion, because a night together is still better
> > than a night alone, even if you are not going to see each other
> > afterwards. Actually, I have (rarely) but only in the context of
> > holidays flings and only for young adults.
> > -women who seek to meet someone for the explicite purpose of sex
> > -sexual arrangements like "fuck buddies", etc...
>
> These have happened to me. In fact, all of them except for the thing
> you say you've seen rarely. I've never had a holiday fling with a
> stranger or anything of that sort. However, I have had women express an
> interest in having short-term sexual relationships, I've known women who
> sought to meet people for the explicit purposes of sex, and I've had
> "friends with benefits" arrangements with women. On the second point,
> where you say that you've never heard of women seeking someone for the
> explicit purpose of sex, where do you think all the women on sites like
> adultfriendfinder.com come from? That's what they're there doing --
> looking for no-strings-attached sex.
>
Internet dating: very good example. Are there women on
adultfriendfinder? Probably a few, yes. According to adultfriendfinder
themselves: plenty. According to many people reporting about the site
on the Net: the site is a fraud. Women profiles are not real, they are
kept for years even when inactive, the profiles behind which a real
woman hides are professionals, etc... Fact: most sites like
adultfriendfinder are free for women, and paying for men. Why is that
so?
> > Has this been your experience as well? If, for example, you consider
> > 100 of your friends, how many do you think have sought casual sex in
> > the above sense at some point in their life? When I think about the
> > woman I know, I would estimate the figure to be very low, perhaps less
> > than 1 in 100. Does your experience differ? I am asking because a
> > newsgroup like this one is simple way to have a point of view of
> > people living in very different environments.
>
> I suspect that quite a large percentage of the women I know will have
> sought what they considered casual sex at some time. Much more
> frequent, though, are forms where the woman dates someone to gain a
> number of things -- companionship, sex, etc. -- despite knowing that the
> person is not "the one". I think that that would be a higher
> percentage. But I think probably something close to half of the women I
> know have pursued someone at least once simply because they wanted to
> have sex with them.
Women dating someone despite knowing that the person is not "the one",
I have heard of. It was relatively common when I was in my 20s.
Companionship was what they were after. Sex was not that frequent. It
is nice to have a friend who helps you on exams, fix the computer,
helps moving the heavy furniture around, etc... And when Mr Right
comes, he has to go.
This being said, what I am presenting is indeed a restricted view of
the whole picture (but unfortunately for me, the one I had access to).
I am perfectly aware that casual sex, women looking for no string sex,
etc... DO EXIST. I never said anything less. I can even show proofs
that it exists: there are swinger clubs in the city where I live, if
no women was using them they would either close or be called GAY
clubs.
So: what is my point? My point is NOT to prove that NO women is
interested in sex. My point is NOT to make semantics distinctions on
"women", "all women", "some women" and "a majority of women". My point
is to find out whether or not casual sex is as frequent as most people
believe. Whether it is as frequent as is presented in the media. I
think not. I may be wrong. If I am wrong, I would like to find out why
I have a different vision of the world when I look around me.
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> I find it a bit tiring to have discussions only centered on semantics.
> Yes, I have read of it right here in this newsgroup, and in other
> internet places. No, I have never heard about it amongst the people I
> know. Probably I know the wrong type of people, but that is not the
> point. The point is that if you take a billion people (number of
> Internet users) and if you let self-select 200 (number of regulars on
> s.s.g.) who are interested about sexuality, you will hear about this
> kind of behaviour. Fantastic: we have proven that it exists in at
> least 200 in a billion people.
>
> However, when I take a sample of 200 people I know, which are mainly
> selected in geographical proximity, I find none. If it were 50% of the
> population, I would have a fair chance to find 100, wouldn't I?
I don't know that this is just about semantics, though. I think what
people are trying to get across is that it does happen and you know
people, albeit possibly only people you know online, who fit the
description. I don't think it's anywhere near as small as 200 in a
billion. What the actual statistics are, I have no idea. I get the
idea that there might be a demographic discrepancy, but I don't know how
our demographics differ, so it's hard to pin down. Age? Geography?
Community size? But fairly casual sexual relationships among women are
just not that wildly uncommon in my experience.
> Internet dating: very good example. Are there women on
> adultfriendfinder? Probably a few, yes. According to adultfriendfinder
> themselves: plenty. According to many people reporting about the site
> on the Net: the site is a fraud. Women profiles are not real, they are
> kept for years even when inactive, the profiles behind which a real
> woman hides are professionals, etc... Fact: most sites like
> adultfriendfinder are free for women, and paying for men. Why is that
> so?
Probably for a lot of reasons. There *are* more men than women on those
sites, so encouraging women to join makes a lot of sense for them. How
many more men than women, I'm not sure. There is also an idea in
our society that sex is available or is supposed to be available to
women whenever they want it. So I think it's harder to convince a woman
to pay money to arrange sex, even if she's having a hard time arranging
it otherwise.
I do know several women who have used adultfriendfinder, though,
personally, and have met lots of men through it. So there are certainly
women out there using it. None of them were "professionals" either. I
don't think I know the entire population of women on adultfriendfinder,
since I've never even used the site personally, so if I know at least a
few women who have used it, it holds that the number is not so
vanishingly near-zero as "the site is a fraud," would imply.
> So: what is my point? My point is NOT to prove that NO women is
> interested in sex. My point is NOT to make semantics distinctions on
> "women", "all women", "some women" and "a majority of women". My point
> is to find out whether or not casual sex is as frequent as most people
> believe. Whether it is as frequent as is presented in the media. I
> think not. I may be wrong. If I am wrong, I would like to find out why
> I have a different vision of the world when I look around me.
How frequent is it presented in the media? I think it's fairly
frequent, but it's possible that I'm both younger than you and live in a
more permissive society. It's not really within any of our powers to
provide hard scientific evidence from our own perspectives, but you
could certainly do some googling and see if there are any good studies.
I think it's certainly more frequent than you seem to be implying, and
part of this might be bias. (For example, in the portion that I cut
which I'm too lazy to uncut right now, you mentioned that the purpose of
women casually dating when they're younger is companionship. How did
you establish this? If you're in a social situation where it's
considered improper for a woman to want sex, do you think it's likely
that you would have known had she just been dating the person for sex?
It's as likely that she would have lied and told you she was dating him
for companionship so people wouldn't brand her a "slut". I'm not saying
that women don't ever date for companionship, but I'm saying that your
conclusion that women date for companionship only in that way seems
suspect.)
toramjero
> toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I find it a bit tiring to have discussions only centered on semantics.
> > Yes, I have read of it right here in this newsgroup, and in other
> > internet places. No, I have never heard about it amongst the people I
> > know. Probably I know the wrong type of people, but that is not the
> > point. The point is that if you take a billion people (number of
> > Internet users) and if you let self-select 200 (number of regulars on
> > s.s.g.) who are interested about sexuality, you will hear about this
> > kind of behaviour. Fantastic: we have proven that it exists in at
> > least 200 in a billion people.
>
> > However, when I take a sample of 200 people I know, which are mainly
> > selected in geographical proximity, I find none. If it were 50% of the
> > population, I would have a fair chance to find 100, wouldn't I?
>
> I don't know that this is just about semantics, though. I think what
> people are trying to get across is that it does happen and you know
> people, albeit possibly only people you know online, who fit the
> description. I don't think it's anywhere near as small as 200 in a
> billion. What the actual statistics are, I have no idea. I get the
> idea that there might be a demographic discrepancy, but I don't know how
> our demographics differ, so it's hard to pin down. Age? Geography?
> Community size? But fairly casual sexual relationships among women are
> just not that wildly uncommon in my experience.
>
It is certainly higher than 200 in a billion. And I have no idea on
the statistics either.
> > Internet dating: very good example. Are there women on
> > adultfriendfinder? Probably a few, yes. According to adultfriendfinder
> > themselves: plenty. According to many people reporting about the site
> > on the Net: the site is a fraud. Women profiles are not real, they are
> > kept for years even when inactive, the profiles behind which a real
> > woman hides are professionals, etc... Fact: most sites like
> > adultfriendfinder are free for women, and paying for men. Why is that
> > so?
>
> Probably for a lot of reasons. There *are* more men than women on those
> sites, so encouraging women to join makes a lot of sense for them. How
> many more men than women, I'm not sure. There is also an idea in
> our society that sex is available or is supposed to be available to
> women whenever they want it. So I think it's harder to convince a woman
> to pay money to arrange sex, even if she's having a hard time arranging
> it otherwise.
>
> I do know several women who have used adultfriendfinder, though,
> personally, and have met lots of men through it. So there are certainly
> women out there using it. None of them were "professionals" either. I
> don't think I know the entire population of women on adultfriendfinder,
> since I've never even used the site personally, so if I know at least a
> few women who have used it, it holds that the number is not so
> vanishingly near-zero as "the site is a fraud," would imply.
>
It seems that the site is more unbalanced in Europe than in the US. I
live in Europe.
It is not really important but I can't understand how you meet men on
the site if you don't use it. I don't really understand how you find
the time to meet men when you already have a wife and 3 girlfriends,
or why you would want to, but I digress.
> > So: what is my point? My point is NOT to prove that NO women is
> > interested in sex. My point is NOT to make semantics distinctions on
> > "women", "all women", "some women" and "a majority of women". My point
> > is to find out whether or not casual sex is as frequent as most people
> > believe. Whether it is as frequent as is presented in the media. I
> > think not. I may be wrong. If I am wrong, I would like to find out why
> > I have a different vision of the world when I look around me.
>
> How frequent is it presented in the media? I think it's fairly
> frequent, but it's possible that I'm both younger than you and live in a
> more permissive society.
I am 45. You certainly live in a more permissive environment.
> It's not really within any of our powers to
> provide hard scientific evidence from our own perspectives, but you
> could certainly do some googling and see if there are any good studies.
The most comprehensive study for the USA is available from the CDC
(center of disease control).
> I think it's certainly more frequent than you seem to be implying, and
> part of this might be bias. (For example, in the portion that I cut
> which I'm too lazy to uncut right now, you mentioned that the purpose of
> women casually dating when they're younger is companionship. How did
> you establish this?
I didn't, it just looked like it from their behaviour.
> If you're in a social situation where it's
> considered improper for a woman to want sex, do you think it's likely
> that you would have known had she just been dating the person for sex?
No, and I realised that before coming to ssg.
> It's as likely that she would have lied and told you she was dating him
> for companionship so people wouldn't brand her a "slut". I'm not saying
> that women don't ever date for companionship, but I'm saying that your
> conclusion that women date for companionship only in that way seems
> suspect.)
In these specific cases, I know it from the men that sex was not
involved.
Anyway, we both appear to live in different worlds. I wonder why it is
so, but I do not know how I could find out. I am a bit puzzled.
curiousp...@gmail.com
> curiousperson...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 12:06 pm, Tom Allen <taomli...@SPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> darklily wrote:
> >>> Darklily (empty life...*snerk*...yeah, right)
> >> Yeah, empty. Now I know why you haven't been able to fit me in...
> > If that *you* refers to me, then you are no different than the
> > majority of men.
>
> Don't flatter yourself.
> This is exactly what I was talking about. You condescending bxxxxx.
.> Tom was addressing darklily. We longtimers tease
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> On Oct 16, 8:45 pm, Irfon-Kim Ahmad <ir...@ambienautica.com> wrote:
>>
>> Probably for a lot of reasons. There *are* more men than women on those
>> sites, so encouraging women to join makes a lot of sense for them. How
>> many more men than women, I'm not sure. There is also an idea in
>> our society that sex is available or is supposed to be available to
>> women whenever they want it. So I think it's harder to convince a woman
>> to pay money to arrange sex, even if she's having a hard time arranging
>> it otherwise.
>>
>> I do know several women who have used adultfriendfinder, though,
>> personally, and have met lots of men through it. So there are certainly
>> women out there using it. None of them were "professionals" either. I
>> don't think I know the entire population of women on adultfriendfinder,
>> since I've never even used the site personally, so if I know at least a
>> few women who have used it, it holds that the number is not so
>> vanishingly near-zero as "the site is a fraud," would imply.
>>
>
> It seems that the site is more unbalanced in Europe than in the US. I
> live in Europe.
>
> It is not really important but I can't understand how you meet men on
> the site if you don't use it. I don't really understand how you find
> the time to meet men when you already have a wife and 3 girlfriends,
> or why you would want to, but I digress.
Just a quick clarification: I meant, that I personally know several
women who have used the site and (those women) have met lots of men
through it. I've never used the site, and so have never met men through
it. I've once, a long time ago, met a guy through a dating site, but it
was a different one. He was very sweet, but I also discovered that in
general arranging hook-ups through online sites was not something I was
interested in doing, personally.
suzee
> On Oct 11, 7:33 pm, suzee <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
>> curiousperson...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Oct 9, 12:06 pm, Tom Allen <taomli...@SPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> darklily wrote:
>>>>> Darklily (empty life...*snerk*...yeah, right)
>>>> Yeah, empty. Now I know why you haven't been able to fit me in...
>>> If that *you* refers to me, then you are no different than the
>>> majority of men.
>> Don't flatter yourself.
>
>> This is exactly what I was talking about. You condescending bxxxxx.
You fling a lot of condescention around yourself..
sue
toramjero
I don't like ice cream. I still enjoy good cooking. Does that answer
the question?
I'll try to avoid words like "open minded" and "closed minded". Maybe
I should point out that English is not my first language, so I may
miss some of its subtilties.
curiousp...@gmail.com
> curiousperson...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 12:06 pm, Tom Allen <taomli...@SPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> I was trying to suggest that same thing, but I was being nicer about it.
> >> Of course, she hasn't told me that I'm retarded or that I have no life.
>
> > Because you are not retarded.
>
First, I am amazed that this thread is still active. Beside, I am not
even reading posts here, and did not read all para of your last post
to which I responded about your accusing us high-school. Obviously,
you do not understand things as much as you think you do.
> It's been my own observation that most of the people on this group are
> not retarded. But then, I've only been participating for the last
> decade, so I could be wrong.
Yes, you are wrong.
>
>
>
> >> See, the whole situation is too high-school for me. Once you're past
> >> your teens, then stop playing games. Just ask somebody out, for cry eye!
> >> Why all the subterfuge and analyzing?
>
> > It is easy to see it as high-school but you are forgetting that he is
> > my instructor and that it is him who is at stake with his boss and I
> > don't want to do anything that would cause him awkardness and hence I
> > needed to know that it would be okay with him for me to ask him out
> > just as * in his case* - if he was interested in me, it would be okay
> > with me if he were to show any interest. So, we had no choice but do
> > that high-school thing. But we are not high-schoolers and hence it's
> > all over now, taking barely 2 days of all 5 weeks. Now, the whole
> > calss probably think she and I are such buddies and that we know each
> > other well as friends. I sensed since last semester - last course was
> > 8 weeks course that started in late March - that that was what he
> > wanted.
>
> Aaauuurrrgghh! My brain hurts!
Not surprised.
>
> Don't you see that this is still high school?
No, this is not high school. This is being sensitive and wise not to
make each other feel awkard in case one of us is in some sort of
situation that doesn't allow him/her to make oneself available for
dating.
> You're both adults, right?
Not just any adults. Adults who refuse to act recklessly.
> Look how easy this is:
>
> CP7: Hi, would you like to go our for coffee this afternoon?
>
> Prof:
> a) Sure, I'd love to. I hate looking at those ugly guys and fat women in
> my class, this would be a nice treat.
> ... or
> b) I'm sorry, but since you're still a student, that would be an issue
> in my department. But the semester is almost over, so let's talk again
> in a couple of months.
> ... or
> c) I'd love to. There is a small issue about me dating a student, but
> since you're an old broad, nobody will really care. Would you like to go
> to Starfucks or Dunkin?
>
> Seriously, what is wrong with that?
A lot of wrongs there. He knows/ senses that I am not a cheapy type
and I am not going to stoop to the level acting as if I am
desperate.
> It's simple, it gets to the point,
> and now the both of you don't have to worry about the game playing.
>
> Sheesh.
While you ere busy Sheeshing, this is what we have accomplished: As I
stated in my last post in this group (not this thread), he and I are
very comfortable with each other now , i.e no walking on eggshell
anymore while not acting wild like the way you think we should. This
past weekend, I emailed him, letting him know about being sick and
how long it usually lasts with me. He replied in on word "EEWWWW" (I
forgot how he spelled) and I replied with a smiley. Then, I told him
(in the email) that I'd bring a face mask to the final (1st try). I
was testing to see whether he suggests that I should not come to the
class. He replied joking, whether I was going to bring the one with an
oxygen tank. I broke into laugh and so I told him that in my reply.
I went to the final, sitting at a place away form all classmates. He
kept teasing me on and off and so I started wearing the mask since I
had some questions I needed to ask him. While waiting because some
people ere talking with him, one classmate said "You shouldn't wear
it. It destroys your look". Another one teased, "Scary" and then
talking about how people over-react. I said out loud, "I am wearing it
so that he (instructor) will stop complaining." Some of you would
wonder why didn't I ask these question sitting in my seat instead of
privately asking. FYI, this is final and people only wanted to know
about the questions they answered wrong which he went over - he could
see how many people got the answer wrong to which questions, etc.
Also, when I tried to ask, he would just joke, and not answer probably
because he wanted me to come to him and ask privately. So, I did.
After we were done with my questions, he asked why I was dressing up.
I said, "I am dressing up. This is my winter clothing, referring to my
corduroy jean pants, which I was wearing with a matching color of wool
blazer. Later, I realized that he just said that as a chit-chat while
he scanned at me closely. Men!
We parted with the arrangement that I would take the final (2nd try)
next week while the class would take it on Wednesday.
I know your brain hurts but you must learn our techniques that works
much better.
Since he made a comment that the virus could travel 130 feet, I was a
little worried that I was in close distance to him while asking
questions. So, I sent an email that night saying that I hope he
doesn't get sick. That was 3 days ago midnight. I didn't hear from
him and was worried and so yesterday (Wednesday) afternoon, I sent
another email and told him that I should have just waited to ask my
question and hoped that he didn't get the germs. He replied saying
that he'd not felling well. I replied saying I was sorry. A couple of
hours later, he sent an email saying that he was kidding. I checked
the email 4 hours from my last one sent to him and I could just scream
when I found out he was pretending. So I told him that he's in so much
trouble, telling him to wait. I was relieved though that he didn't
let me on longer then he did. So this morning, I sent him an email
telling him just that. He replied within 10 mins but I didn't see it
just now saying that he hoped I was felling better. A couple of
hours after that email, he replied to the other email (about trouble)
saying "For what?" I replied to both.
Now, you see how it all is going well beautifully? We don't have to
talk dirty like you were suggesting.
The fact that all this communication is through his regular college
email account tells me that he is comfortable with me enough to be
flirting with me.
I will stop here.
> Tom Allenhttp://tom-allen.livejournal.com/http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com/
darklily
(SNIPPED)
> > Look how easy this is:
>
> > CP7: Hi, would you like to go our for coffee this afternoon?
>
> > Prof:
> > a) Sure, I'd love to. I hate looking at those ugly guys and fat women in
> > my class, this would be a nice treat.
> > ... or
> > b) I'm sorry, but since you're still a student, that would be an issue
> > in my department. But the semester is almost over, so let's talk again
> > in a couple of months.
> > ... or
> > c) I'd love to. There is a small issue about me dating a student, but
> > since you're an old broad, nobody will really care. Would you like to go
> > to Starfucks or Dunkin?
>
> > Seriously, what is wrong with that?
>
> A lot of wrongs there. He knows/ senses that I am not a cheapy type
> and I am not going to stoop to the level acting as if I am
> desperate.
>
> > It's simple, it gets to the point,
> > and now the both of you don't have to worry about the game playing.
>
> > Sheesh.
(SNIPPED)
> Now, you see how it all is going well beautifully? We don't have to
> talk dirty like you were suggesting.
>
> The fact that all this communication is through his regular college
> email account tells me that he is comfortable with me enough to be
> flirting with me.
>
> I will stop here.
Curiosperson, you are so on the defensive that you aren't reading
posts with a clear mind. Tom wasn't really suggesting that the
professor would reply with either a or c. He was being absurd to make
a point. You have been beating around the bush with your instuctor for
months. Your approach has been immature. If you simply asked him out
for coffee he might say yes. Instead of innuendo and teasing you might
get an adult conversation instead.
Not to say innuendo and teasing aren't fun...but without the adult
conversation part, there's really no relationship.
>This
>past weekend, I emailed him, letting him know about being sick and
>how long it usually lasts with me. He replied in on word "EEWWWW" (I
>forgot how he spelled) and I replied with a smiley. Then, I told him
>(in the email) that I'd bring a face mask to the final (1st try). I
>was testing to see whether he suggests that I should not come to the
>class. He replied joking, whether I was going to bring the one with an
>oxygen tank. I broke into laugh and so I told him that in my reply.
So tell me...how is email any different that IM?
Darklily
toramjero
>
> Now, you see how it all is going well beautifully? We don't have to
> talk dirty like you were suggesting.
>
Your discussion is getting more and more surreal. If it were published
it would win a prize in experimental literature.
Tom Allen
> On Oct 11, 7:33 pm, suzee <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
>> curiousperson...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Oct 9, 12:06 pm, Tom Allen <taomli...@SPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> darklily wrote:
>>>>> Darklily (empty life...*snerk*...yeah, right)
>>>> Yeah, empty. Now I know why you haven't been able to fit me in...
>>> If that *you* refers to me, then you are no different than the
>>> majority of men.
>> Don't flatter yourself.
>
>> This is exactly what I was talking about. You condescending bxxxxx.
Now, let's add this up: You posted the question, wondering why somebody
would get a divorce, and then launched into several long, tortuously
written diatribes about how you would like to figure out if some guy is
interested in you - but not *too* interested, just in case he might want
sex.
The people who responded - most of whom I have found to be intelligent
and sensitive - to your posts, some of whom were merely asking for
clarification, have been treated to your juvenile behavior. You've
called people retards, airheads, etc., and now that you, yourself, have
completely misunderstood a comment that *I* made, you have called
somebody a bitch.
CP, for the lat two weeks I have found you to be one of the most
egregious examples of that kind of women who, while trying to maintain a
position of righteousness, end up proving themselves to be conniving
man-haters. I feel sorry for this professor - or anyone else - who
becomes involved with you. You are going to play childish games, leading
him on by acting the coquette, all the while keeping a score sheet of
what he owes you for your sexual favors.
In this country, we call women who trade favors for sex "whores." Except
that the more honest ones simply ask for money upfront, and the guy
knows what he's getting into.
--
Tom Allen
Tom Allen
> On Oct 11, 8:03 pm, Tom Allen <taomlinS...@MEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> curiousperson...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Oct 9, 12:06 pm, Tom Allen <taomli...@SPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> I was trying to suggest that same thing, but I was being nicer about it.
>>>> Of course, she hasn't told me that I'm retarded or that I have no life.
>>> Because you are not retarded.
>
> First, I am amazed that this thread is still active. Beside, I am not
> even reading posts here, and did not read all para of your last post
> to which I responded about your accusing us high-school. Obviously,
> you do not understand things as much as you think you do.
I guess you're right. I don't understand why you can't simply ask
somebody if they would like to go for coffee.
>> It's been my own observation that most of the people on this group are
>> not retarded. But then, I've only been participating for the last
>> decade, so I could be wrong.
>
> Yes, you are wrong.
Yes, so you have implied.
>>>> See, the whole situation is too high-school for me. Once you're past
>>>> your teens, then stop playing games. Just ask somebody out, for cry eye!
>>>> Why all the subterfuge and analyzing?
>>> It is easy to see it as high-school but you are forgetting that he is
>>> my instructor and that it is him who is at stake with his boss and I
>>> don't want to do anything that would cause him awkardness and hence I
>>> needed to know that it would be okay with him for me to ask him out
>>> just as * in his case* - if he was interested in me, it would be okay
>>> with me if he were to show any interest. So, we had no choice but do
>>> that high-school thing.
And that is why it is up to *him* to simply say "I'd love to go our with
you," or "Sorry, but I don't date mentally under-aged simpletons," or
even "It might be fun to go for coffee, but I dont' want to waste my
time with somebody who expects me to bring her food when she's sick, yet
who will probably late on show her gratitude by keeping a scorecard of
al the favors that I owe her."
>> Don't you see that this is still high school?
>
> No, this is not high school. This is being sensitive and wise not to
> make each other feel awkard in case one of us is in some sort of
> situation that doesn't allow him/her to make oneself available for
> dating.
Awkward? It seems to be a lot more awkward to play such juvenile games.
You are only one step away from passing notes to the other kids in class.
>> You're both adults, right?
> Not just any adults. Adults who refuse to act recklessly.
Because we all know that asking a sincere, discreet question is
anybody's idea of "reckless," right?
>> Look how easy this is:
>>
>> CP7: Hi, would you like to go our for coffee this afternoon?
>>
>> Prof:
>> a) Sure, I'd love to. I hate looking at those ugly guys and fat women in
>> my class, this would be a nice treat.
>> ... or
>> b) I'm sorry, but since you're still a student, that would be an issue
>> in my department. But the semester is almost over, so let's talk again
>> in a couple of months.
>> ... or
>> c) I'd love to. There is a small issue about me dating a student, but
>> since you're an old broad, nobody will really care. Would you like to go
>> to Starfucks or Dunkin?
>>
>> Seriously, what is wrong with that?
>
> A lot of wrongs there. He knows/ senses that I am not a cheapy type
> and I am not going to stoop to the level acting as if I am
> desperate.
So, now we're getting to the root of your problem. You see any overt
interest as being "cheap" or "desperate," instead of seeing it as being
adult and assertive.
Explain to me again why you thought it would be a good idea to pose this
question on a *sexuality* group?
>> It's simple, it gets to the point,
>> and now the both of you don't have to worry about the game playing.
>>
>> Sheesh.
>
> While you ere busy Sheeshing, this is what we have accomplished: As I
> stated in my last post in this group (not this thread), he and I are
> very comfortable with each other now , i.e no walking on eggshell
> anymore while not acting wild like the way you think we should.
Acting wild? CP, giving him a blowjob behind the desk is acting wild.
Pushing all the papers off the desk and fucking your brains out is
acting wild. Showing up in class in a long trenchcoat with nothing
underneath is acting wild.
Asking to meet for coffee? Not so much.
> past weekend, I emailed him, letting him know about being sick and
> how long it usually lasts with me. He replied in on word "EEWWWW" (I
> forgot how he spelled) and I replied with a smiley. Then, I told him
> (in the email) that I'd bring a face mask to the final (1st try). I
> was testing to see whether he suggests that I should not come to the
> class. He replied joking, whether I was going to bring the one with an
> oxygen tank. I broke into laugh and so I told him that in my reply.
This is exactly how my tween daughter and her friends act.
> After we were done with my questions, he asked why I was dressing up.
> I said, "I am dressing up. This is my winter clothing, referring to my
> corduroy jean pants, which I was wearing with a matching color of wool
> blazer. Later, I realized that he just said that as a chit-chat while
> he scanned at me closely. Men!
Again with your sexual schizophrenia! You just went through several
weeks trying to figure out a way to show him that you are interested,
but you have the gall to complain when he contrives to act interested?
I wonder how you are going to feel when he decides that he's interested
in a sexual relationship because he's tired of women who played games -
like his ex-wife.
> We parted with the arrangement that I would take the final (2nd try)
> next week while the class would take it on Wednesday.
>
> I know your brain hurts but you must learn our techniques that works
> much better.
At least I have a brain to hurt. How do you think with all of the fluff
in your head?
> Now, you see how it all is going well beautifully? We don't have to
> talk dirty like you were suggesting.
When did I or anybody suggest that you talk dirty?
But you know what? If it's going beautifully, then I'm happy for you.
Now, don't let the door hit your in your conniving ass on the way out.
--
Tom Allen
Tom Allen
> Curiosperson, you are so on the defensive that you aren't reading
> posts with a clear mind. Tom wasn't really suggesting that the
> professor would reply with either a or c.
I wasn't? *I* would have...
> He was being absurd to make
> a point. You have been beating around the bush with your instuctor for
> months. Your approach has been immature. If you simply asked him out
> for coffee he might say yes. Instead of innuendo and teasing you might
> get an adult conversation instead.
But DL - that would make her look "cheapy" and desperate.
> Not to say innuendo and teasing aren't fun...but without the adult
> conversation part, there's really no relationship.
>
>> This
>> past weekend, I emailed him, letting him know about being sick and
>> how long it usually lasts with me. He replied in on word "EEWWWW" (I
>> forgot how he spelled) and I replied with a smiley. Then, I told him
>> (in the email) that I'd bring a face mask to the final (1st try). I
>> was testing to see whether he suggests that I should not come to the
>> class. He replied joking, whether I was going to bring the one with an
>> oxygen tank. I broke into laugh and so I told him that in my reply.
>
>
> So tell me...how is email any different that IM?
:snerk:
--
Tom Allen
darklily
> darklily wrote:
> > Curiosperson, you are so on the defensive that you aren't reading
> > posts with a clear mind. Tom wasn't really suggesting that the
> > professor would reply with either a or c.
>
> I wasn't? *I* would have...
Yeah, well from the sound of it her professor is no Tom Allen. : )
If her perception of the situation is on target, then maybe they
deserve each other. It sounds like her professor might not be acting
in a completely adult way either . However, I have some doubts that
her perceptions are on target.
>
> > He was being absurd to make
> > a point. You have been beating around the bush with your instuctor for
> > months. Your approach has been immature. If you simply asked him out
> > for coffee he might say yes. Instead of innuendo and teasing you might
> > get an adult conversation instead.
>
> But DL - that would make her look "cheapy" and desperate.
*Headdesk* ugh...it just hurts my brain every time I hear that.
Better for her to look like an idiot, eh?
>
> > Not to say innuendo and teasing aren't fun...but without the adult
> > conversation part, there's really no relationship.
>
> >> This
> >> past weekend, I emailed him, letting him know about being sick and
> >> how long it usually lasts with me. He replied in on word "EEWWWW" (I
> >> forgot how he spelled) and I replied with a smiley. Then, I told him
> >> (in the email) that I'd bring a face mask to the final (1st try). I
> >> was testing to see whether he suggests that I should not come to the
> >> class. He replied joking, whether I was going to bring the one with an
> >> oxygen tank. I broke into laugh and so I told him that in my reply.
>
> > So tell me...how is email any different that IM?
>
> :snerk:
>
Liked that? I wonder if she'll answer.
Darklily (running off to go on one of those family camp outs that is
symbolic of my empty, lonely life)
curiousp...@gmail.com
> months. Your approach has been immature. If you simply asked him out
> for coffee he might say yes.
Oh, Paleeze. First of all, I was not taking a any class in the
summer. There was 8 week Spring class and now in this Fall, there was
the first 8 week class with the second one starting this Monday.
Beside, If I think it is as simple as asking him out for a coffee, do
you think I would not do that? Just as he wanted to make sure that he
was reading me right, I needed to make sure that I was reading right.
I wasn't going to rush, acting desperate. I knew that I had plenty of
time (because I'd be taking more of his classes) and so did he.
> Instead of innuendo and teasing you might
> get an adult conversation instead.
To get to adult conversation, sometimes it is necessary to make sure
that that's what the other person is after. And that's what we were
doing.
>
> Not to say innuendo and teasing aren't fun...but without the adult
> conversation part, there's really no relationship.
Just read what said above.
>
> >This
> >past weekend, I emailed him, letting him know about being sick and
> >how long it usually lasts with me. He replied in on word "EEWWWW" (I
> >forgot how he spelled) and I replied with a smiley. Then, I told him
> >(in the email) that I'd bring a face mask to the final (1st try). I
> >was testing to see whether he suggests that I should not come to the
> >class. He replied joking, whether I was going to bring the one with an
> >oxygen tank. I broke into laugh and so I told him that in my reply.
>
> So tell me...how is email any different that IM?
Email can be done at one's convenience; IM, the constant kind, shows
that people are desperate.
>
> Darklily
curiousp...@gmail.com
> On Oct 10, 8:43 am, toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 9, 9:06 pm, Tom Allen <taomli...@SPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > darklily wrote:
> > > >> I suggest that you re-read my original post in this thread. If you
> > > >> can't participate in the topics at hand, at least be civilized enough
> > > >> to shut up instead of trying to fill your empty life with stupid
> > > >> questions to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > I suggest you learn how to write coherently and avoid run-on
> > > > sentences.Watch your verb tenses as well. If you could manage that
> > > > perhaps I wouldn't have to ask questions. Your writing also tends to
> > > > be convoluted. How you managed a higher degree is unfathomable. I know
> > > > my thesis committee wouldn't have stood for it.
>
> > > > I merely asked for clarification.
>
> > > My assumption was that English is not her first language. She has some
> > > odd phrasings that suggest she learned it later on.
>
> > > > But now...go screw yourself. You're the most infantile adult that I've
> > > > come across. Are you sure you aren't a teenager or young college
> > > > student? You sure as hell are acting like one. Maybe that's why there
> > > > are no decent men in your life...they are smart enough to run when
> > > > they see you coming. Nobody wants to have a relationship with someone
> > > > who acts like a child.
>
> > > I was trying to suggest that same thing, but I was being nicer about it.
> > > Of course, she hasn't told me that I'm retarded or that I have no life.
>
> > > your teens, then stop playing games. Just ask somebody out, for cry eye!
> > > Why all the subterfuge and analyzing?
>
> > > gonna get married or you're not. But what's that got to do with sex?
>
> > if a grown-up wants to know someone, they just ask him (or her) to go
> > for a cup of coffee, have a talk, etc... But sex seems to be a special
> > case.
>
> > Honest question (not only for Tom): hasn't your experience been that
> > there are lots of women like "curiousperson" around, as far as sex is
> > concerned? You seem to imply that it is commonplace that, should a
> > woman find a man she knows attractive, she would just tell him so.
> > This has never been my experience, nor the experience of any man I
> > know. Games seems to be the norm, even long past the age of high
> > school. Men need to demonstrate that they find the woman "unique" (or
> > in other words that they are interested in just this one woman, and
> > won't be interested in any other one as long as they will form a
> > couple). Women never ask for sex.
>
> > You seem to imply that casual sex is a common occurence. Is it?
>
> Something else I just thought about. "curiousperson", which is
> decidely a good illustration for a certain type of women, wrote in her
> first post that "she knew for sure that
> he is not foolish enough to pass this opportunity". I should say that
> I have witnessed this behaviour in other cases: this category of women
> assume that they just need to snap their fingers and men would be
> foolish not to pass the opportunity of them offering sex.
First, let me state that I am just randomly picking post to read as
entertainment. In another word, I am done explaining and refuting each
post made by retards.
I would, however, point out what I am about to to show as example how
people like you takes things out of context, twist and talk with
accusing tone. When I said, he is not foolish enough to pass up this
opportunity, I made it clear in my post that I meant that if he was
genuinely interested in me and it was not about sex.
>
> Maybe I am foolish, but with the kind of character "curiousperson" has
> shown on this thread, I think I would pass the opportunity even if she
> looked like a supermodel. I don't know about other men. I even don't
> know whether or not finding a reasonably attractive man for casual sex
> is easy or not for reasonably attractive women.
With the kind brain you have, you do not stand a chance with me
anyawy.
>
> But what is clear is that "curiousperson" assumes that it is. She just
> paints a society where men would be constantly seeking sex,
But My man is not a typical man, not at this age, with a young son,
especially with a comment he made saying how he was kind of relieved
that it was a son, not daughter, telling the guy sitting in the same
row as me - that guy has a young son and another on the way and they
were talking about their children. Does it sound like he is the type
who would use me for sex intentionally and deliberately without making
it clear to me, giving the fact that he is highly ethical person.
You know what? I have enough refuting these retarded statement
And to the women who said 'It's common enough that women go for sex
only these days", drop "I think" if you know for sure. If you dot know
for sure, then don't say it. let me guess. Your PhD is in a junk
major like psychology?.
> jump at
> any occasion, and women just need to raise the bar to get what they
> want in exchange. Think about details like her comment on prostitutes,
> for example. And true or not, this opinion appears to be relatively
> prevalent in our society.
>
> As a sidenote: women like "curiousperson" cannot determine whether
> their idea of sex being a commodity is true or not, since she is
> actually trying to avoid sex.
>
> And of course, if this is your view of the world, you are not going to
> invest a lot in sex, simply because you believe that it is readily
> available. Women with this belief have a special outlook on the world
> of relationships, and the behaviour which goes with it.
>
> I wonder if there are women who think differently, who find it
> difficult to get sex (or the type of sex they want) and, conversely,
> invest efforts to get it and, as a consequence, find sex to be
> something of value. A bit like men.
suzee
> You know what? I have enough refuting these retarded statement
Good, because your explanations become more convoluted.
> And to the women who said 'It's common enough that women go for sex
> only these days", drop "I think" if you know for sure. If you dot know
> for sure, then don't say it. let me guess. Your PhD is in a junk
> major like psychology?.
Many people use `I think' to mean `in my opinion', not to express doubt.
sue
Sarah
>Email can be done at one's convenience; IM, the constant kind, shows
>that people are desperate.
Yeah, just like phone calls...
o.O
--
See the ssg homepage: http://socsexualitygeneral.org/
If you want to contact me directly on SSG moderation business, please replace TwoUnderscores with... well, two underscores.
Tom Allen
> First, let me state that I am just randomly picking post to read as
> entertainment. In another word, I am done explaining and refuting each
> post made by retards.
Fair enough. Speaking for myself, I know that I have long since passed
the point of patience with your rambling diatribes and holier-than-thou
attitude.
> I would, however, point out what I am about to to show as example how
> people like you takes things out of context, twist and talk with
> accusing tone. When I said, he is not foolish enough to pass up this
> opportunity, I made it clear in my post that I meant that if he was
> genuinely interested in me and it was not about sex.
What we have here is a failure to communicate. I'm not sure how you
found SSG, but this group exists to discuss sexuality and its various
aspects. Most of the regular members here are "sex positive," meaning
that they have a generally accepting view of sexuality, and do not make
judgments about the moral or ethical character of people based on their
enjoyment of sex between consenting adults.
You apparently take a different perspective, which is fine - but you
have really chosen the wrong venue in which to elaborate upon it.
For example, the following paragraph highlights your attitude toward
sexuality, and shows you to be rather, um, unfavorably disposed toward
sex simply for the enjoyment of sex.
> But My man is not a typical man, not at this age, with a young son,
> [...] Does it sound like he is the type
> who would use me for sex intentionally and deliberately without making
> it clear to me, giving the fact that he is highly ethical person.
Ethics has nothing to do with enjoying sex.
> You know what? I have enough refuting these retarded statement
Retarded?
You were the one who originally posted a question to a *sexuality group.*
> And to the women who said 'It's common enough that women go for sex
> only these days", drop "I think" if you know for sure. If you dot know
> for sure, then don't say it. let me guess. Your PhD is in a junk
> major like psychology?.
My, my, aren't we in a snit again?
Here, let me say it: It is common, especially among younger people, to
enjoy sex with no attachments, simply because it can be enjoyable.
Welcome to the 21st century. Women are allowed to have sexual pleasure here.
I've even been known to help a few.
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself... I am, however, known to be a
carrier."