Sex in Second Life
Elizabeth
quite a lot of male attention and gets lots of offers of sexual
activity. Clearly she feeds into a male fantasy, even though her name
is not a traditional one. I've been playing around with her avatar
skin (this includes body shape, ethnicity, body parts, etc) and she
also gets to wear fabulous clothing. When in her voluptuous lips, blue
eyes, and mane of dark hair, she's propositioned by most guys she
meets. When in her Japanese skin, people just want to talk. When
Italian, she is treated with caution. All very interesting, since
these are all fabrications I've cooked up on my computer.
As voluptuous lips, my avatar has engaged in sex. The animations
supplied (and/or bought) from Second Life are quite realistic, though
- me thinks - there is still a way to go. The guys (and girls)
[avatars] who have sex together, and the people on the computer side,
clearly enjoy themselves. Now I understand the wherewithall of
interactive porn.
My avatar has even been sexuall harrassed. A guy would not take no for
a valid answer, and kept on and on about voluptuous lips kissing him.
He became a nuisance. The beauty of a virtual life, however, is that
you can fly or teleport away whenever the going gets irritating or
virtually dangerous. Or, I might suddenly change skins to trip him up!
Has anyone else on ssg explored Second Life in general, and SL sex in
particular? What are your stories?
-Elizabeth-
Desideria
Definitely haven't, but that sounds interesting. If one's avatar has
sex, I wonder if in some way the person running it could be considered
to have had sex as well, if only mentally (?????).
Desideria
Elizabeth
Yes, and then all those grey areas regarding infidelity and such.
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Yes, and then all those grey areas regarding infidelity and such.
Is there really no acceptable social space, even on Second Life, for people to
cheat? Society seems more tolerant of guns, drugs and corporate theft than
people getting their cyber rocks off while in relationships. Why this insane
moralizing about infidelity? All it's doing is making people want to cheat
more, compounded with the frustration of not being able to find willing
partners.
Orlando
Tom Allen
> erate...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>> Yes, and then all those grey areas regarding infidelity and such.
>
> Is there really no acceptable social space, even on Second Life, for people to
> cheat? Society seems more tolerant of guns, drugs and corporate theft than
> people getting their cyber rocks off while in relationships.
:eye roll:
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself... I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> Has anyone else on ssg explored Second Life in general, and SL sex in
> particular? What are your stories?
A friend of mine is very active in SL and encouraged me to try it out,
but it turns out that the client doesn't work properly on my computer at
all, and no amount of posting to support forums ever elicited any
suggestions or ideas. :(
I've spent a fair chunk of time on PlayStation Home. Home is very
different in this respect, though. For one, it's supposed to be a
"family" environment, so there's very little support for anything of an
adult nature. And you can't create custom content at all -- you're
restricted to what's provided by Sony -- so there aren't any actions
available to your avatars that could be used to simulate sex.
I have, however, noticed that when I wander around using a female
avatar, she gets a lot of attention and has strangers walking up and
making spontaneous conversation with her constantly. This doesn't seem
to change depending on the way the avatar looks to any notable degree.
She gets *lots* of attention as a "geek girl", which is the default I
have set for the female avatar -- she's short, as chunky as the game
will allow, has glasses, wears as little makeup as the game will allow,
and wears comfortable clothing, mostly denim and t-shirts, with her long
brown hair back in a pony tail. And yes, she gets chatted up all the
time. (This shouldn't surprise me that much, since I think her avatar
is pretty cute, myself.) Some of those conversations seem to just be
conversations, but she also gets hit on or propositioned a fair bit.
But many guys just like to chat with her.
Conversely, if I wander around using a male avatar (which I do most of
the time, since I'm male and don't want to feed into the stereotype that
women don't game and any female you see online is a male pretending to
be female), he gets completely ignored most of the time or encounters
outright hostility from the other male avatars in the system, for the
most part, unless there's a specific joint goal -- when they ran an
in-game ARG, it was possible to have conversations with other male
avatars about that and about solving the puzzles, but still, nowhere
near as easy as with the female avatar.
.
suzee
> Well, people ON Second Life don't have a problem with it, that is for sure!
Tiffany. You're back!!!
sue
Desideria
That's interesting. I'm a gal who games, and despite having a sweetie
I'm definitely into flirtation, but only flirtation.
Might be good for my ego to wander over there! :-)
Desideria
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Well, people ON Second Life don't have a problem with it, that is for sure!
What a relief! Seriously, from whence comes this neo-Puritanical disdain for
infidelity?
Orlando
Desideria
Orlando, I need to piggyback on you for a moment if you don't mind....
Irfon, I think you posted about Playstation Home? If so, I've signed
up for a Playstation Network ID, but I don't seem able to get on to
home. I don't have a PS 3 :-(, only a PS 2 that isn't hooked up to the
Internet.
Do you know if Playstation Home can be accessed by computer, or if I
*must* have a PS3 to do it?
Thanks much! :-)
Desideria
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Possibly it is from the fear of contracting a desease from a third person
>or not wanting to have their feelings crushed. But I guess I really don't
>know.
Tiffany, why have you not declared on this newsgroup that you are in fact
sixteen? Any of us participating in sexually frank discussions with you could
be treading on thin legal ice. Folks, what would you consider proper deportment
with an under age girl in our midst? Is it improper to email with her
privately, especially when she tends to focus most discussions around sex? I'm
just trying to get an idea of how others would proceed.
Orlando
Lusus Naturae
>why have you not declared on this newsgroup that you are in fact
>sixteen?
Perhaps because it's nobody's business but her own?
> Any of us participating in sexually frank discussions with you could
>be treading on thin legal ice.
Not on the group. Possibly private emails could get iffy, if they were
too personal.
> what would you consider proper deportment
>with an under age girl in our midst?
The same as for those who have reached their majority: She should not
email anyone privately about sexual subjects without first making sure
the recipient wants the communication.
>Is it improper to email with her
>privately,
It certainly is -- unless she specifically requests it. And that has
absolutely nothing to do with her age.
>especially when she tends to focus most discussions around sex?
On a Sexuality newsgroup? Who would have thunk it?
> I'm
>just trying to get an idea of how others would proceed.
Sure you are. There's not a chance in hell that you're looking for an
excuse to glom onto anyone just because she's female.
--
Lusus Naturae
suzee
I thought she was sixteen a couple years ago when she first posted to
the group.
sue
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> Irfon, I think you posted about Playstation Home? If so, I've signed
> up for a Playstation Network ID, but I don't seem able to get on to
> home. I don't have a PS 3 :-(, only a PS 2 that isn't hooked up to the
> Internet.
>
> Do you know if Playstation Home can be accessed by computer, or if I
> *must* have a PS3 to do it?
Unfortunately, Home does require a PlayStation 3. :(
.
CT
world. I mean, it is a way to explore what otherwise cannot be explored
in reality. Are there outlets or venues on second life for that sort of
thing? Bestiality, scat sex, autoerotic asphyxiation, pedophelia,
necrophelia, etc...? Has anyone encountered any perverse individuals in
second life? Has anyone here BEEN a perverse individual?
Tom Allen
> I wonder what sorts of perversions users of Second Life bring to the
> world. I mean, it is a way to explore what otherwise cannot be explored
> in reality.
Would it matter in any way beyond what a text story, or perhaps, a
cartoon or anime would matter? The interactions on 2ndL are virtual.
While there may be a curiosity factory, and while some emotional
attachment to characters may or may not occur, what remains is simply a
well-rendered anime, with no physical connection to the creator or viewer.
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com/
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself. I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
Tom Allen
From the idea that cheating is inherently unethical, and that we should
try to avoid it? I'm just saying.
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>I thought she was sixteen a couple years ago when she first posted to
>the group.
She claims to be sixteen now. I just can't understand why a teenager would be
participating here, knowing that none of us can interact with her as an adult.
This group admittedly focuses on adult sexuality; it is not meant to be a sex
education forum for teenagers.
Orlando
Tom Allen
Maybe she's participating *because* we are adults here, and can talk
about our genitals without using the euphemism "down there", and can
talk about intercourse without calling it "doing the nasty".
I wish I had adults to talk about sex with when I was 16.
Spare Cycles
> She claims to be sixteen now. I just can't understand why a teenager
> would be participating here, knowing that none of us can interact with
> her as an adult.
Huh? It isn't statutory rape to discuss sexuality. This group isn't for
sharing pictures, so there is no child porn angle. I think you've got
your knickers in a twist. Ironic considering how you react to things
like Second Life adultery.
> This group admittedly focuses on adult sexuality; it is not meant to be
> a sex education forum for teenagers.
It focuses on "general" sexuality. Adult is not in the name. Teenagers
need sex education, true, and this group not a substitute for that. But
this is a fine place for discussing issues that teenagers may have.
-- cycles
suzee
Also, in many states, the age of consent is 16, but that's for sexual
*acts*, which is not the case here. The only interaction is discussion
anyway.
sue
Desideria
Bummer. I checked out Second Life, and I think Playstation Home sounds
a lot more like my kinda thing.
Desideria
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Also, in many states, the age of consent is 16, but that's for sexual
>*acts*, which is not the case here. The only interaction is discussion
>anyway.
It's hard enough to talk about sex with someone I can't have because she or I
are already committed to other partners. It's too aggravating to flirt with
someone who is sexually off limits because of her age. For the sake of my
sanity, I'd rather not befriend under age girls in order to avoid temptation.
Orlando
suzee
Then maybe you ought to stay off newsgroups for your own sanity.
sue
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Then maybe you ought to stay off newsgroups for your own sanity.
Most inanimate temptations don't actively discourage or prohibit people from
enjoying them. Once an alcoholic or chronic cigarette smoker decide to use,
their preferred substances don't talk back, saying: "If you see me at a bar,
keep your lips off my bottleneck." or "No matter how much you like how I smell
when other people smoke me, don't you dare light me up." In most of my online
and offline life, I am barraged by female sexuality that is decidedly not meant
for me to enjoy, whether it's because I'm blind, blunt, emotionally intense,
too weird, too fat, too poor, too far away or in a committed relationship. A
man can only take so much rejection before taking the decisive action of
turning away from what he is not permitted to enjoy.
Orlando
David
I really hope this doesn't come off as insulting, because that really
isn't my intention. If you feel insulted, I do apologise in advance.
>suz...@imbris.com wrote:
>>I thought she was sixteen a couple years ago when she first posted to
>>the group.
>
>She claims to be sixteen now.
She hasn't claimed that, or not as far as I've seen. Can you point to
where she has made that claimed?
Because of what happened to Tiffany 3 years ago, and what looks like is
possibly going to happen again, I went back through the posts I could
find to see if I could see if she had mentioned her age. In looking
through all the posts I could retrieve from my news server, covering all
the way back to the middle of 2005[0], I couldn't find a single post to
this group where she stated her age. I have found suggestions that she
may have been around 16 at that time, but there was nothing definite.
After looking at posts she made to other groups to try and pin things
down a little more, my guess was she was either most likely 16 at the
time she left. Now, even if she was under 16 at that time, she left over
3 years ago and so she's quite likely to be 18+ now. That should make
her nicely fit under the definition of an adult.
>I just can't understand why a teenager would be
>participating here, knowing that none of us can interact with her as an adult.
Why not? Just because she's a woman doesn't mean you need to flirt with
her. I'm sure that, being an adult yourself, you've learnt all about
self-control.
>This group admittedly focuses on adult sexuality; it is not meant to be a sex
>education forum for teenagers.
Since a lot of what you read is going to teach you something, or
reinforce something you've already learnt, this group _is_ an education
forum[1]. Just by having discussions about sex means someone, somewhere,
is going to learn something they didn't already know, or it may spark an
idea of something new to try.
[0] Thanks to Highwinds still having posts dating back that far.
[1] I've learnt many things from reading this group over the last 10
years. For example, what fruit to use to "improve" the flavour of my
ejaculate being one of the more useful things, as were the various
suggestions on how to go down on a woman.
--
David
Tom Allen
Yes, so let's blame the girl because you can't control yourself.
Wait, seems to me I've heard that kind of argument before...
Tom Allen
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:-
>> I just can't understand why a teenager would be
>> participating here, knowing that none of us can interact with her as
>> an adult.
>
> Why not? Just because she's a woman doesn't mean you need to flirt with
> her. I'm sure that, being an adult yourself, you've learnt all about
> self-control.
Umm... this *is* Orlando we're talking about, right?
Desideria
wrote:
>Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
>> suz...@imbris.com wrote:
>>> Also, in many states, the age of consent is 16, but that's for sexual
>>> *acts*, which is not the case here. The only interaction is discussion
>>> anyway.
>>
>> It's hard enough to talk about sex with someone I can't have because she or I
>> are already committed to other partners. It's too aggravating to flirt with
>> someone who is sexually off limits because of her age. For the sake of my
>> sanity, I'd rather not befriend under age girls in order to avoid temptation.
>
>
>Yes, so let's blame the girl because you can't control yourself.
>
>Wait, seems to me I've heard that kind of argument before...
I don't see Orlando blaming the girl here. I think he's setting his
own limits, and he's certainly free to choose to not flirt with her.
He's also free to ask gals their ages, they're free to not answer, and
he's free to not email with them.
(shrug)
We all have the right to make our own choices, and to have our own
reactions to others' choices.
Desideria
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>I don't see Orlando blaming the girl here. I think he's setting his
>own limits, and he's certainly free to choose to not flirt with her.
>He's also free to ask gals their ages, they're free to not answer, and
>he's free to not email with them.
Tiffany actually volunteered her current age as sixteen, possibly as a way of
protecting me from legal risks associated with flirtation's slippery steps.
>We all have the right to make our own choices, and to have our own
>reactions to others' choices.
I've realized that I have to keep my life very simple. If a young woman is
articulate, playful, flirtatious, seductive or even explicit about her
sexuality, it is likely that I will develop at least a theoretical interest in
her. In most cultures, women assume at least some responsibility for triggering
male sexual urges with their bodies, dress styles, words or flirtatious
actions. Once women become aware of the typical reactions they tend to get,
they choose whether or not to modify their behavior in order to achieve a
different reaction. In America, feminism has left us the legacy that women
should be able to dress, speak and behave as sexually openly as they want,
while men are supposed to train themselves not to react by expressing sexual
interest or, God forbid, making a grab for the goods. While I have never been a
grabber, I went through such a timid period from early adolescence to young
adulthood that I never expressed overt sexual interest; I always waited for
women to make the first move because I was afraid of my interest not being
requited. I then went through a period of expressing any sexual interest I felt
and leaving it up to women to reject me when necessary.
Being so verbally oriented because of my blindness, it takes very little to
flood my mind with fantasies of every sexual experience I've longed to enjoy.
Bottom line, a young girl who can put together coherent sentences about sex on
Second Life is probably going to trigger my desires. Since the law in my
country says I ca not react to anything she says in any way that could be
interpreted as a sexual advance, I'd prefer that other men deal with her.
As for blaming Tiffany, I do think she should be more responsible about
exposing her sexuality in mixed-aged fora full of horny adult men. Just as most
American bars will not admit teenagers even if they don't drink, we should not
let Tiffany hang out here, tempting us with her sexuality, if we are prohibited
from interacting with her as an adult.
Orlando
suzee
>
> As for blaming Tiffany, I do think she should be more responsible about
> exposing her sexuality in mixed-aged fora full of horny adult men. Just as most
> American bars will not admit teenagers even if they don't drink, we should not
> let Tiffany hang out here, tempting us with her sexuality, if we are prohibited
> from interacting with her as an adult.
Don't forget the horny adult women....
Geeze, and you are blaming her - "tempting us with her sexuality"....
Grow up Orlando, take responsiblities for your own actions and
expectations. You read a lot more into words than are actually there.
sue
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Don't forget the horny adult women....
How could I? They never let me forget that they're horny.
>Geeze, and you are blaming her - "tempting us with her sexuality"....
>Grow up Orlando, take responsiblities for your own actions and
>expectations. You read a lot more into words than are actually there.
If that is in fact true, I must have learned that reading art somewhere and
could therefore unlearn it. I know I read more into words than most men because
they seem fine with the same levels of expressed sexuality that drive me crazy.
But still, no culture but ours forces men and women to deal with this much
sexual stimulation with so little payoff. In most cultures, men and women are
careful about how they communicate with each other because they know what can
happen when intentions differ or are misunderstood. American men are pummeled
with the message that women can say or do whatever they want and we had better
keep hands off. Well, if hands off is the state that most American women want,
it takes some action from them to maintain it. They've already got all sorts of
rape and sexual harassment laws on their side. But, it's gotten to the extreme
where women like Serene have threatened me with legal action for innocuous
emails with no sexual content. If people post using their real email addresses,
they're going to get emailed privately. Since I don't mind private emails, I
don't bother to hide my address. This all gets back to the central issue:
American women constantly expect men to refrain from talking to or touching
them in unwanted ways, while they get to continue as they are. What if we don't
want so much stimulation from women unwilling to have sex with us? Where are
our laws to keep such women away? What if we don't want the torture of minors
parading their Second Life escapades in this newsgroup? Where are our laws to
make us feel all cuddly and safe? No, we get nothing! We get to keep it in our
pants over and over again until our balls ache. Is that our rightful recompense
for being good providers, patient listeners and romantic lovers?
Orlando
suzee
Just how are you going to have contact with women you interact with on
newsgroups when they live in different parts of the country, or
different countries? You say these women online tempt you with their
posts - tempt you to do what? You can't have any RL contact with them
anyway, so I don't see the problem - do you expect to? And yes, unwanted
sexual email is an invasion of privacy. Newsgroups are a *group* and
therefore safer, public and more anonymous than email. Once you send an
email, it becomes personal and private. This has all been explained to
you before, yet you still don't get it. The only problem is between your
ears.
sue
Tom Allen
> suz...@imbris.com wrote:
>> Don't forget the horny adult women....
>
> How could I? They never let me forget that they're horny.
You apparently have SSG confused with one of those AOL chat rooms. I
haven't seen any horny women around here. I have seen adult women who
enjoy their sexuality, which is completely different.
>
>> Geeze, and you are blaming her - "tempting us with her sexuality"....
>> Grow up Orlando, take responsiblities for your own actions and
>> expectations. You read a lot more into words than are actually there.
>
> If that is in fact true, I must have learned that reading art somewhere and
> could therefore unlearn it. I know I read more into words than most men because
> they seem fine with the same levels of expressed sexuality that drive me crazy.
And yet you're not subtle enough to take the hint that perhaps the
problem is on your own end?
> But still, no culture but ours forces men and women to deal with this much
> sexual stimulation with so little payoff. In most cultures, men and women are
> careful about how they communicate with each other because they know what can
> happen when intentions differ or are misunderstood.
I'm sure you'd be happy moving to a middle eastern state, where women
wear long robes to cover their skin and are not allowed to socialize
with men. Or you might try moving to an Amish community.
> American men are pummeled
> with the message that women can say or do whatever they want and we had better
> keep hands off. Well, if hands off is the state that most American women want,
> it takes some action from them to maintain it. They've already got all sorts of
> rape and sexual harassment laws on their side.
Yeah, those damn horny women who have nothing better to do than to tempt
us poor, unsuspecting, hormone driven men. Damn them!
> But, it's gotten to the extreme
> where women like Serene have threatened me with legal action for innocuous
> emails with no sexual content. If people post using their real email addresses,
> they're going to get emailed privately. Since I don't mind private emails, I
> don't bother to hide my address.
:eye roll:
I get irritated because quite a few guys make a point to be polite,
respectful of boundaries, and understanding; and then you come along and
act like a sexually charged stalker.
A pleasant email exchange does not need to turn into a sexual exchange.
I somehow manage to have emails and phone contact with dozens of women
every day without so much as a double entendre.
> This all gets back to the central issue:
That you are an idiot.
> American women constantly expect men to refrain from talking to or touching
> them in unwanted ways, while they get to continue as they are.
Do you go into a grocery store and start eating the food off the shelves
simply because you're hungry? Do you grab drinks off a neighboring table
at a restaurant simply because you're thirsty? Do you steal from your
neighbors simply because you're coveting something they have?
No, I didn't have a point to those questions; why do you ask?
> What if we don't
> want so much stimulation from women unwilling to have sex with us? Where are
> our laws to keep such women away? What if we don't want the torture of minors
> parading their Second Life escapades in this newsgroup? Where are our laws to
> make us feel all cuddly and safe? No, we get nothing! We get to keep it in our
> pants over and over again until our balls ache. Is that our rightful recompense
> for being good providers, patient listeners and romantic lovers?
Oh, for fuck's sake! Pull your head out of your ass and stop thinking
with your dick for a change. How the hell do you even stand to listen to
yourself anymore?
suzee
> Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
>> But, it's gotten to the extreme where women like Serene have
>> threatened me with legal action for innocuous emails with no sexual
>> content. If people post using their real email addresses, they're
>> going to get emailed privately. Since I don't mind private emails, I
>> don't bother to hide my address.
>
> :eye roll:
> I get irritated because quite a few guys make a point to be polite,
> respectful of boundaries, and understanding; and then you come along and
> act like a sexually charged stalker.
Or a perpetually horny adolescent rather than an adult....
sue
Remus Shepherd
> :eye roll:
> I get irritated because quite a few guys make a point to be polite,
> respectful of boundaries, and understanding; and then you come along and
> act like a sexually charged stalker.
I just wanted to back Tom up on this point. I *am* a sexually charged
stalker, but I take great lengths not to show it, and people like Orlando
are ruining all my hard work. ;)
... ...
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com>
Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/remus_shepherd/
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Just how are you going to have contact with women you interact with on
>newsgroups when they live in different parts of the country, or
>different countries?
By email or telephone.
>You say these women online tempt you with their
>posts - tempt you to do what?
To try and get something going with them--at least to ask if they're willing.
>You can't have any RL contact with them
>anyway, so I don't see the problem - do you expect to?
If it were a woman of legal age willing to make real world contact with me, I
would surely try.
>And yes, unwanted sexual email is an invasion of privacy.
Then it's up to the person desiring privacy to ensure and protect it. It's not
my job to stay strictly public or silent.
>Newsgroups are a *group* and therefore safer, public and more anonymous than
email. Once you send an email, it becomes personal and private. This has all
been explained to
>you before, yet you still don't get it. The only problem is between your
>ears.
The only problem with private email is caused by women not wanting to be
contacted by men, usually because they've been posting on romantic or sexual
topics. This is never an issue in newsgroups devoted to other topics. No one
from political, food or music related newsgroups, for instance, has ever
objected to being emailed. Some posters have sigs specifying that all replies
should be posted rather than emailed, which I honor. But, if someone posts with
their real email address, it generally means they are open to being emailed. I
have no double standard about this rule of thumb; it applies to all ages and
genders including me. Let's take a different example, that of telemarketers. If
my number is not on a "do not call" list, there is no law prohibiting them from
calling me. If I don't want to be called, it's up to me to protect myself by
making sure my number is on an appropriate list. I can't expect telemarketers
at call centers seeing my number on their tiny terminals to determine that I am
not to be called.
Once again, this gets back to what I've been saying all along, that women
refuse to take any responsibility for the reactions their words and deeds get
from men or women who find them attractive. American women want to wear, say
and do anything they want at any time, in any context and in front of anyone;
for them, it is up to the rest of us to control ourselves while they remain
exempt from any self control. In actuality, self control is a two way street.
If a woman does not desire sexual attention, it behooves her not to prove it
just as it behooves those attracted to her either to ask before lavishing her
with unwanted attention and respect her answer. It is however unrealistic to
expect men not to at least inquire whether such attention is welcome. When I
email women privately, those emails are inquiries. I am not asking them their
favorite sexual positions, fantasies or relationship status, much less inviting
them to bed. I am merely expressing interest, which anyone can do at any time.
If I get rejected, I may sometimes send a followup email asking why I was
rejected or requesting a second chance, just as a man might approach a woman on
the street who has rejected him in an effort to wear down her resistance. Email
is not quantitatively tantamount to breaking into someone's house. If that were
the case, my inbox has been burglarized by spammers for years. Email is just
another way of making contact with people, like a phone number or post office
box. A Gmail or similar anonymous email account gives no indication of where
anyone lives or how to track them down.
Besides, there is something wrong with a picture in which a woman wants or
needs to talk frankly about sex, yet is too cowardly to deal with the
repercussions of those conversations. If she wants to be safe from male
lecherous interest, let her start a women-only moderated sex newsgroup or email
listserv.
You're the one not getting the concept. Kosher Jews do not demand that the
entire world accommodate their dietary restrictions; they patronize kosher
establishments and observe the laws in their homes without expecting the rest
of the world to follow suit. I, as a blind man, do not expect every computer I
turn on anywhere to be accessible, my paper currency to be recognizable, my
street signs audible, etc. I realize that although it would be nice to have
these accommodations, they are impositions on how the rest of society wishes to
operate. What you don't get is that it is a terrible imposition on me to force
me not to react verbally to frank sexual discussions.
Orlando
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>And yes, unwanted sexual email is an invasion of privacy. Newsgroups are a
*group* and therefore safer, public and more anonymous than email. Once you
send an email, it becomes personal and private. This has all been explained to
>you before, yet you still don't get it. The only problem is between your
>ears.
Sue, there is no law anywhere in the world prohibiting perfect strangers from
emailing each other. If someone feels they have been spammed or sold something
spurious, it's up to them to report it. Bottom line, email addresses are meant
to be used. There are plenty of easy ways for women who do not wish to be
emailed to hide their addresses when posting to newsgroups. The technology is
easy to configure and widely available. Most newsreaders allow an entirely
different email address for posts as compared to the real one associated with
the account. You evidently have trouble understanding that it's your
responsibility to take care of this.
Orlando
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Or a perpetually horny adolescent rather than an adult....
In this context, adult behavior to you means turning a proverbial blind eye to
the natural physical and emotional reactions that often arise when sexual
content is discussed by sexually attractive people. This is emasculation and I
won't stand for it! Just as a straight man may develop an indistinguishably
erection at the sight of an attractive woman, some men develop the equivalent
of emotional erections when sexually enticing women discuss sex explicitly. It
is unrealistic to assume that no one on a sex-related newsgroup will react to
what's being discussed.
Orlando
Tom Allen
> Tom Allen <tao...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> :eye roll:
>> I get irritated because quite a few guys make a point to be polite,
>> respectful of boundaries, and understanding; and then you come along and
>> act like a sexually charged stalker.
>
> I just wanted to back Tom up on this point. I *am* a sexually charged
> stalker, but I take great lengths not to show it, and people like Orlando
> are ruining all my hard work. ;)
:laughs:
I dont' know why I waste my breath, er, typing - Orlando does not
respond to comments by other men because, well, I forget why, but I
think it was because he doesn't see them, being too much sexually
aroused by the horny temptresses around here.
Tom Allen
> suz...@imbris.com wrote:
>> Or a perpetually horny adolescent rather than an adult....
At least you have some hope that the adolescent will grow out of it...
> In this context, adult behavior to you means turning a proverbial blind eye to
> the natural physical and emotional reactions that often arise when sexual
> content is discussed by sexually attractive people. This is emasculation and I
> won't stand for it! [...]
OFGS. Almost every other guy manages to have normal, civil discourse
with the women here, and virtually all of the women - except maybe
Serene - manage to discuss sexuality like adults.
Hell, even teenage Tiffany manages to discuss sex as an adult, which is
why I'd rather see her here than you.
> It is unrealistic to assume that no one on a sex-related newsgroup
> will react to what's being discussed.
People *are* reacting, you asshat. They are reacting like adults: by
understanding that simply talking about the subject does not mean you
have to drop your pants and whine that nobody is paying attention.
I think that Suzee nailed it - you act like somebody stuck at 14 years old.
suzee
I know there's no law against it. But if it's been made clear to person
A by person B that person B doesn't want to receive such email, and if
person A does so, they're in the wrong.
sue
suzee
> Remus Shepherd wrote:
>> Tom Allen <tao...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> :eye roll:
>>> I get irritated because quite a few guys make a point to be polite,
>>> respectful of boundaries, and understanding; and then you come along
>>> and act like a sexually charged stalker.
>>
>> I just wanted to back Tom up on this point. I *am* a sexually charged
>> stalker, but I take great lengths not to show it, and people like Orlando
>> are ruining all my hard work. ;)
>
> :laughs:
>
> I dont' know why I waste my breath, er, typing - Orlando does not
> respond to comments by other men because, well, I forget why, but I
> think it was because he doesn't see them, being too much sexually
> aroused by the horny temptresses around here.
I think he doesn't respond to men's posts because he would prefer to
bully women and whine about how they don't pay attention to *his* needs.
And he probably has you all killfiled because he only wants to read
the women's posts....
sue
suzee
And actually the point I was trying to make is that what people feel
comfortable discussing in an anonymous newsgroup, does not always mean
they will feel comfortable discussing via email with only one person.
That's irregardless of whether their real email address is visible or not.
sue
Serene Vannoy
>
> OFGS. Almost every other guy manages to have normal, civil discourse
> with the women here, and virtually all of the women - except maybe
> Serene - manage to discuss sexuality like adults.
Pfbtthfpthhhh!
Serene, who would thwap him, but he might like it
--
42 Magazine, celebrating life with meaning. Inaugural issue is here!
http://42magazine.com
"But here's a handy hint: if your fabulous theory for ending war and
all other human conflict will not survive an online argument with
humourless feminists who are not afraid to throw rape around as an
example, your theory needs work." -- Aqua, alt.polyamory
David
>Remus Shepherd wrote:
>> I just wanted to back Tom up on this point. I *am* a sexually
>>charged
>> stalker, but I take great lengths not to show it, and people like Orlando
>> are ruining all my hard work. ;)
>
>:laughs:
>
>I dont' know why I waste my breath, er, typing - Orlando does not
>respond to comments by other men because, well, I forget why, but I
>think it was because he doesn't see them, being too much sexually
>aroused by the horny temptresses around here.
What I can't understand about him is that, just before she left last
time, he posted this[0]:
Since it's generally frowned upon
to solicit group members regardless of age, I doubt Ms. Tiffany is in
any danger of being indecently solicited.
So, what has changed in the 32 months since then? He didn't seem to
think it would be any issues talking to her then, so there should still
be no issues talking to her now. It's simple enough to not send someone
an e-mail.
[0] Message-ID: <MPG.1e27afd19...@news.verizon.net>
<URL:http://groups.google.com/group/soc.sexuality.general/msg/0cf4dff9d2a50f14>
--
David
Tom Allen
> Tom Allen wrote:
>
>>
>> OFGS. Almost every other guy manages to have normal, civil discourse
>> with the women here, and virtually all of the women - except maybe
>> Serene - manage to discuss sexuality like adults.
>
> Pfbtthfpthhhh!
>
> Serene, who would thwap him, but he might like it
You have no idea.
Or maybe you do :-)
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself... I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
Tom Allen
> And actually the point I was trying to make is that what people feel
> comfortable discussing in an anonymous newsgroup, does not always mean
> they will feel comfortable discussing via email with only one person.
> That's irregardless of whether their real email address is visible or not.
In which case the proper response is to send an email saying "Do you
mind if we take that conversation a little further?" And when one gets a
reply to the effect of "No, this is far enough" all one has to do is to
stop emailing.
Why do we even have these freakin' discussions? Very few other people
have had a problem with this. I mean, seriously, we've had teenagers up
to 70+ year oldsters, and very few people have had any issues with
respecting boundaries.
At least, as far as I know.
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself... I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
suzee
> suzee wrote:
>
>> And actually the point I was trying to make is that what people feel
>> comfortable discussing in an anonymous newsgroup, does not always mean
>> they will feel comfortable discussing via email with only one person.
>> That's irregardless of whether their real email address is visible or
>> not.
>
>
> In which case the proper response is to send an email saying "Do you
> mind if we take that conversation a little further?" And when one gets a
> reply to the effect of "No, this is far enough" all one has to do is to
> stop emailing.
Yes, exactly.
David
>suz...@imbris.com wrote:
>>You say these women online tempt you with their
>>posts - tempt you to do what?
>
>To try and get something going with them--at least to ask if they're willing.
Are you sure that's not you reading something into it? I've been reading
this group for something like ten years and, on the odd occasion, I've
posted to it. In all that time, I don't remember seeing a woman trying
to get anyone to do anything with them. Not even once. I have seen a bit
of flirting between a few of the posters, who very clearly know each
other and are comfortable flirting with each other, but I've not seen
anything like what you appear to be seeing.
>>You can't have any RL contact with them
>>anyway, so I don't see the problem - do you expect to?
>
>If it were a woman of legal age willing to make real world contact with me, I
>would surely try.
So, as you are sure Tiffany isn't the legal age, you won't be getting in
touch with her then. In January 2006 you did say that:
Since it's generally frowned upon
to solicit group members regardless of age, I doubt Ms. Tiffany is in
any danger of being indecently solicited.
which means you won't be soliciting her, or any other woman, at least in
this group?
>>And yes, unwanted sexual email is an invasion of privacy.
>
>Then it's up to the person desiring privacy to ensure and protect it. It's not
>my job to stay strictly public or silent.
It's not the responsibility of the person receiving sexually oriented
mails to try prevent them. It's the responsibility of the sender to make
sure that they are wanted.
>>Newsgroups are a *group* and therefore safer, public and more anonymous than
>email. Once you send an email, it becomes personal and private. This has all
>been explained to
>>you before, yet you still don't get it. The only problem is between your
>>ears.
>
>The only problem with private email is caused by women not wanting to be
>contacted by men,
Are you sure it's that they don't want to be contacted by _all_ men, or
is it that they don't want to be contacted by _some- men, and that group
of _some_ men includes yourself?
>usually because they've been posting on romantic or sexual
>topics. This is never an issue in newsgroups devoted to other topics.
Really?
>No one
>from political, food or music related newsgroups, for instance, has ever
>objected to being emailed. Some posters have sigs specifying that all replies
>should be posted rather than emailed, which I honor.
Ah, so there are some that would object to being emailed. So far you've
honoured their request to not do so, and so they've not yet had to
object about it to you.
>But, if someone posts with
>their real email address, it generally means they are open to being emailed.
Maybe. I post with (one of) my real e-mail address(es), one set up just
for this newsgroup. And, just because I do use a real e-mail address
when posting her, it doesn't mean that I desire emails of either a
sexual or non-sexual nature.
>Once again, this gets back to what I've been saying all along, that women
>refuse to take any responsibility for the reactions their words and deeds get
>from men or women who find them attractive. American women want to wear, say
>and do anything they want at any time, in any context and in front of anyone;
>for them, it is up to the rest of us to control ourselves while they remain
>exempt from any self control.
Really? Just how old are you? Are you sure you're not Tiffany's age, or
younger? You do appear to be acting that way.
As a counter to your assertion, here's a little of what I've
experienced. In the towns and cities I regularly visit, I see a lot of
women that I think are quite attractive. They aren't usually "flaunting
their assets" but, more often than not, are wearing quite casual
clothing. I don't have a problem with self-control and, from
appearances, I don't see anyone else having problems of self control.
And that applies to both sexes.
I suppose part of this could be because the women I meet aren't American
women, but I seriously doubt that is the reason. I really do think that
you're reading much too much into what you're reading/seeing.
>In actuality, self control is a two way street.
>If a woman does not desire sexual attention, it behooves her not to prove it
>just as it behooves those attracted to her either to ask before lavishing her
>with unwanted attention and respect her answer.
And how exactly are they supposed to prove that they don't want to
receive that attention? Unless you're watching them with a webcam, a
burka won't work at all. And, given that there's porn available
specifically with women wearing hijabs and/or burkas[0], I don't think
it would work even then.
>It is however unrealistic to
>expect men not to at least inquire whether such attention is welcome.
Doesn't that depend on the environment? This is a discussion group about
sexuality, not a pickup joint. Just because someone is talking about sex
in public, doesn't mean they want sex or that they want to hold private
discussions about sex. A good rule of thumb is that, if they're talking
in public, ask them in public if they'd be interested in your attention.
If they say no, don't bother asking them why or for them to reconsider.
It's much less likely that they'll stop talking to you in public, and
they may change their minds in the future.
>When I
>email women privately, those emails are inquiries. I am not asking them their
>favorite sexual positions, fantasies or relationship status, much less
>inviting
>them to bed.
Why are you asking them in private if it's acceptable to contact them
privately? You wouldn't do that to someone you met in public in real
life. If you meet someone in public that you might be interested in,
you'd ask her for her number or ask her out there and then. You wouldn't
look up her number in a phone book and phone her to ask her out, nor
would you follow her home, knock on her door, and then ask her out. And
since you wouldn't do either of those in real life, what makes it
acceptable to do the equivalents online?
> I am merely expressing interest, which anyone can do at any time.
>If I get rejected, I may sometimes send a followup email asking why I was
>rejected
That could be a learning experience for you, but it could easily be
unwelcome by the recipient, and it could make them uncomfortable.
>or requesting a second chance, just as a man might approach a woman on
>the street who has rejected him in an effort to wear down her
>resistance.
And that is the start of harassment. If they've said no, it's pretty
clear that they mean no. If they didn't, they most likely wouldn't have
said no. If they change their minds in the future, they'll get in touch
with you.
>A Gmail or similar anonymous email account gives no indication of where
>anyone lives or how to track them down.
But a gmail account is still a real e-mail address, and you've virtually
said that it's fine for you to mail any real e-mail address and ask if
the owner is interested in talking with you.
>Besides, there is something wrong with a picture in which a woman wants or
>needs to talk frankly about sex, yet is too cowardly to deal with the
>repercussions of those conversations.
What repercussions? And what makes her cowardly because she doesn't want
to receive sexually orientated mails? There's something wrong with the
picture where, just because a woman talks about sex, she has to put up
with immature/insensitive men harassing her.
>If she wants to be safe from male
>lecherous interest, let her start a women-only moderated sex newsgroup
>or email
>listserv.
That would then stop those mature adult men from being a part of those
conversations.
>I, as a blind man, do not expect every computer I
>turn on anywhere to be accessible, my paper currency to be recognizable, my
>street signs audible, etc. I realize that although it would be nice to have
>these accommodations, they are impositions on how the rest of society
>wishes to
>operate.
What has being blind got to do with contacting a poster to the group and
enquiring if they'd be interested in talking/emailing you?
>What you don't get is that it is a terrible imposition on me to force
>me not to react verbally to frank sexual discussions.
Bull. It's no more of an imposition on you that it is for anyone, male
or female. Self-control is something most people have learnt by the time
they reach 18 years old, and usually even earlier, and so should be
something you have been exercising for some time.
[0] Don't ask how I found it. All I remember about it was the random
clicking of links that looked vaguely interesting until I found some
that mentioned the hijab.
--
David
Tom Allen
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:-
>
>> suz...@imbris.com wrote:
>
>>> You say these women online tempt you with their
>>> posts - tempt you to do what?
>>
>> To try and get something going with them--at least to ask if they're
>> willing.
>
> Are you sure that's not you reading something into it? I've been reading
> this group for something like ten years and, on the odd occasion, I've
> posted to it. In all that time, I don't remember seeing a woman trying
> to get anyone to do anything with them. Not even once. I have seen a bit
> of flirting between a few of the posters, who very clearly know each
> other and are comfortable flirting with each other, but I've not seen
> anything like what you appear to be seeing.
David, some of us have been here even longer and haven't seen it. Know
why? Because this group is one of the few places on Usenet where adults
can talk frankly about sex without resorting to euphemisms, and where
they can be reasonably sure that other adults will respond in an adult
like manner. You know, like adults: People who are not so impulsive that
they can't control their thoughts and reactions.
Interestingly, I have seen complaints that this groups can be kind of
dry without the flirting and stuff, but really, if you want that, then
there's IRC or AOHell chat rooms.
[...]
>
> Really? Just how old are you? Are you sure you're not Tiffany's age, or
> younger? You do appear to be acting that way.
Yeah. Imagine.
> And how exactly are they supposed to prove that they don't want to
> receive that attention? Unless you're watching them with a webcam, a
> burka won't work at all. And, given that there's porn available
> specifically with women wearing hijabs and/or burkas[0], I don't think
> it would work even then.
Dude, you have got to post a link...
> Why are you asking them in private if it's acceptable to contact them
> privately? You wouldn't do that to someone you met in public in real
> life. If you meet someone in public that you might be interested in,
> you'd ask her for her number or ask her out there and then. You wouldn't
> look up her number in a phone book and phone her to ask her out, nor
> would you follow her home, knock on her door, and then ask her out. And
> since you wouldn't do either of those in real life, what makes it
> acceptable to do the equivalents online?
That analogy might be a little off. I've met women and then found their
number by other means later on. See, I don't think that sending *one*
email asking if further contact is welcome to be a bad thing. Certainly
it gives both people an opportunity to save face as opposed to asking
someone in public (should the contact be unwelcome).
But this...
>
>> I am merely expressing interest, which anyone can do at any time.
>> If I get rejected, I may sometimes send a followup email asking why I was
>> rejected
>> or requesting a second chance, just as a man might approach a woman on
>> the street who has rejected him in an effort to wear down her resistance.
... is just a bit weird.
>> Besides, there is something wrong with a picture in which a woman
>> wants or
>> needs to talk frankly about sex, yet is too cowardly to deal with the
>> repercussions of those conversations.
>
> What repercussions? And what makes her cowardly because she doesn't want
> to receive sexually orientated mails? There's something wrong with the
> picture where, just because a woman talks about sex, she has to put up
> with immature/insensitive men harassing her.
He seems to think that talking frankly in "public" means that she is
available and perhaps even trying to tempt him, or perhaps even
advertising her availability. He doesn't get -- Eris only knows why --
that groups like this are generally much safer for women (and men, of
course) who want to ask questions or explore certain ideas.
> What has being blind got to do with contacting a poster to the group and
> enquiring if they'd be interested in talking/emailing you?
Personally, I think he's using it to play on sympathies. Or he uses it
as a pick up line. Or something. Yeah, I know, I'm not a nice person for
thinking this, but after having heard a number of stories...
>> What you don't get is that it is a terrible imposition on me to force
>> me not to react verbally to frank sexual discussions.
>
> Bull. It's no more of an imposition on you that it is for anyone, male
> or female. Self-control is something most people have learnt by the time
> they reach 18 years old, and usually even earlier, and so should be
> something you have been exercising for some time.
BTW, I think that Orlando kill-files all the men in a conversation
thread. Seriously, if you read this group in a threaded format, he never
replies to men, only women. Suzee thinks it's so he can bully them, or
argue with them or something. So, don't expect him to respond. OTOH,
don't let it stop you from ranting. I find that it's an interesting
experiment to see if I can write anything provocative enough to make the
little asshat actually respond.
Whoops, did I say that out loud?
Odd that he complains about the women tempting him, and yet almost
deliberately goes out of his way to encourage the temptation, huh?
> [0] Don't ask how I found it. All I remember about it was the random
> clicking of links that looked vaguely interesting until I found some
> that mentioned the hijab.
Heh. I'm off to click.
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself... I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
Serene Vannoy
> Are you sure it's that they don't want to be contacted by _all_ men, or
> is it that they don't want to be contacted by _some- men, and that group
> of _some_ men includes yourself?
Bingo. I've had plenty of contact with men on Usenet, from this and
other groups, including one with whom I not only had online sexual
contact, but, Dear Reader, I married him.
ONE person has been asked to never email me ever again. ONE person has
persisted in emailing me after being told over and over that I don't
welcome that contact from him. Anyone wanna guess who that is?
>> usually because they've been posting on romantic or sexual
>> topics. This is never an issue in newsgroups devoted to other topics.
>
> Really?
I know that alt.polyamory (purported topic: multiple-partner
relationships, but it's not a topic-restricted group) and
rec.food.cooking (topic: cooking, and some of us try to keep it
restricted to that) have also had problems with this particular person.
> Why are you asking them in private if it's acceptable to contact them
> privately?
Just as a datapoint, I actually don't mind that at all. A polite email
that says "I saw that you mentioned X in the newsgroup; do you mind if
we talk about that offgroup?" is fine with me. It's the hostile response
to a "yes, I do mind" that bothers me.
Serene
Tom Allen
> ONE person has been asked to never email me ever again. ONE person has
> persisted in emailing me after being told over and over that I don't
> welcome that contact from him. Anyone wanna guess who that is?
Look, I'm really sorry about that, but if you'd only give me another
chance, maybe I could explain it in a way that you'd understand...
Serene Vannoy
> Serene Vannoy wrote:
>
>> ONE person has been asked to never email me ever again. ONE person
>> has persisted in emailing me after being told over and over that I
>> don't welcome that contact from him. Anyone wanna guess who that is?
>
> Look, I'm really sorry about that, but if you'd only give me another
> chance, maybe I could explain it in a way that you'd understand...
>
Back off, buster. Don't make me get a restraining order.
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>I know there's no law against it. But if it's been made clear to person
>A by person B that person B doesn't want to receive such email, and if
>person A does so, they're in the wrong.
I agree there.
Orlando
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>I think he doesn't respond to men's posts because he would prefer to
>bully women and whine about how they don't pay attention to *his* needs.
No bullying here.
> And he probably has you all killfiled because he only wants to read
>the women's posts....
Damn straight! I'm too busy to read men's posts in sex-related newsgroups where
I'm interested in women.
Orlando
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>And actually the point I was trying to make is that what people feel
>comfortable discussing in an anonymous newsgroup, does not always mean
>they will feel comfortable discussing via email with only one person.
>That's irregardless of whether their real email address is visible or not.
All I can say to that is that I don't understand how women could feel more
comfortable divulging intimate sexual details of their lives to strangers
rather than individuals in a setting where they will not be judged or demeaned.
Orlando
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Serene, who would thwap him, but he might like it
Pain is not my kink.
Orlando
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Just as a datapoint, I actually don't mind that at all. A polite email
>that says "I saw that you mentioned X in the newsgroup; do you mind if
>we talk about that offgroup?" is fine with me. It's the hostile response
>to a "yes, I do mind" that bothers me.
Have you never gotten angry when someone rejected you without even trying to
get to know you? Has it ever triggered a hostile response in you when someone
banishes you based on shallow, surface contact? Has it not made you wish they
were more tolerant or patient with you?
Orlando
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Back off, buster. Don't make me get a restraining order.
Mere email contact should not require restraining orders. Restraining orders
are meant to protect people from potential physical danger. You and others
don't get the crucial difference. Unwanted email may be annoying, but it hardly
demands the same weaponry used to prevent physical violence.
Orlando
David
>suz...@imbris.com wrote:
>>I think he doesn't respond to men's posts because he would prefer to
>>bully women and whine about how they don't pay attention to *his* needs.
>
>No bullying here.
Except that, while you may not see it as bullying, the person receiving
your unwanted attention does.
>> And he probably has you all killfiled because he only wants to read
>>the women's posts....
>
>Damn straight! I'm too busy to read men's posts in sex-related
>newsgroups where
>I'm interested in women.
Reading the above paragraph makes it sound like you really do think that
this really just a pickup joint, a place where you can go to find horny
women that would just love to satisfy your "needs", rather than being a
group that's specifically for the discussion about human sexuality. If
that is the case, try (re-)reading the charter so you can find out just
what this group is for.
Of course, by restricting yourself to posts made by just the one sex
means that you might miss out on little bits of information that could
be useful to know. That is unless what you're really after is just
material that can be used as later to feed fantasies.
--
David
David
>David wrote:
>> Why are you asking them in private if it's acceptable to contact them
>>privately?
>
>Just as a datapoint, I actually don't mind that at all. A polite email
>that says "I saw that you mentioned X in the newsgroup; do you mind if
>we talk about that offgroup?" is fine with me.
There in lies a point. You don't mind, and there will be others that
don't mind either, but there will be still others that do. Since the
sender can't tell which group of people the person they're wanting to
mail is (currently) in, it's much easier to ask in public first, and
then take it to mail if they agree.
>It's the hostile response to a "yes, I do mind" that bothers me.
I'm not surprised. It's a great way to make sure that a person isn't
going to change their mind about not wanting to take it to e-mail with
the sender in the future.
--
David
David
>ser...@serenepages.org wrote:
>>Just as a datapoint, I actually don't mind that at all. A polite email
>>that says "I saw that you mentioned X in the newsgroup; do you mind if
>>we talk about that offgroup?" is fine with me. It's the hostile response
>>to a "yes, I do mind" that bothers me.
>
>Have you never gotten angry when someone rejected you without even trying to
>get to know you?
Yes. But if a person has rejected me, that's their choice. In my view,
it's also their loss.
>Has it ever triggered a hostile response in you when someone
>banishes you based on shallow, surface contact?
You mean like a first/second/third impression?
>Has it not made you wish they
>were more tolerant or patient with you?
Nope, but it has made me think I that the skills I have for spotting
people that may be interested in me aren't as good as they could be. And
I certainly wouldn't start harassing them because they didn't want to
know me. It's a complete waste of our time for me to try over and over
again, and for them to reject me time and time again. On top of that, it
only breeds anger and resentment, and those would start to affect other
possible relationships.
--
David
Tom Allen
> Tom Allen wrote:
>> Serene Vannoy wrote:
>>
>>> ONE person has been asked to never email me ever again. ONE person
>>> has persisted in emailing me after being told over and over that I
>>> don't welcome that contact from him. Anyone wanna guess who that is?
>>
>> Look, I'm really sorry about that, but if you'd only give me another
>> chance, maybe I could explain it in a way that you'd understand...
>>
>
> Back off, buster. Don't make me get a restraining order.
Damn, not again!
Tom Allen
I'm a guy. It happens all the time. Well, it used to happen, but I'm
married now, so I don't often make advances that might be misconstrued.
That said, as and *adult* (the point that you consistently miss), I've
learned to handle such rejection by saying to myself "Feh! Her loss."
Tom Allen
> suz...@imbris.com wrote:
>> And he probably has you all killfiled because he only wants to read
>> the women's posts....
>
> Damn straight! I'm too busy to read men's posts in sex-related newsgroups where
> I'm interested in women.
What an asshat!
Here we get to the heart of the matter. No wonder poor Orlando is so
tempted by the scads of horny, available, tempting women around here.
They are all tantalizing him with their charms, and everywhere he looks
there is a potential liaison.
Orlando, you are a freakin' asshat. You're not even reading the posts
within context (i.e., adult conversations), so all you see are messages
by women who are thinking about sex.
Did I mention that you are an asshat?
So, when women see your emails, they don't realize until later that you
have completely misinterpreted their posts -- they think that you're
just some regular adult guy who is interested in discussing an issue.
They get squicked and ask you to stop emailing, and you get offended.
I mentioned that you're an asshat, right?
Desideria
Orlando, I think maybe they were kidding...
Desideria
suzee
Then you're missing out on a lot of good insights.
sue
suzee
That was a joke. See, the words don't always mean what you think they do.
sue
Serene Vannoy
> Serene Vannoy wrote:
>> Tom Allen wrote:
>>> Serene Vannoy wrote:
>>>
>>>> ONE person has been asked to never email me ever again. ONE person
>>>> has persisted in emailing me after being told over and over that I
>>>> don't welcome that contact from him. Anyone wanna guess who that is?
>>>
>>> Look, I'm really sorry about that, but if you'd only give me another
>>> chance, maybe I could explain it in a way that you'd understand...
>>>
>>
>> Back off, buster. Don't make me get a restraining order.
>
> Damn, not again!
>
*smoooooooooooch*
suzee
I'm replying to your post David, so it might be seen by others.
sue
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Orlando, I think maybe they were kidding...
No, they're really not. People who routinely reject others without trying to
get to know them will incur at least some resentment in the rejected person.
This is to be expected in any society where people are honest about their
feelings. It has hurt me to be rejected by women upon whom I made no direct
sexual advances and with whom I displayed unflagging politeness.
Orlando
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Then you're missing out on a lot of good insights.
You don't get it. I don't read this group for male insights on sex. I read it
to socialize with sexually expressive and potentially available women. Stop
trying to make me use the group differently.
Orlando
Tom Allen
> deside...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Orlando, I think maybe they were kidding...
>
> No, they're really not.
Yes, they really were. Tom and Serene were playing with each other, but
you missed the context because you don't read posts from men. That's
because you're an asshat.
> People who routinely reject others without trying to
> get to know them will incur at least some resentment in the rejected person.
People who are routinely rejected by others would do well to find some
people to help him understand why. And he should try to develop an open
mind with regards to seeing himself as others see him
> This is to be expected in any society where people are honest about their
> feelings. It has hurt me to be rejected by women upon whom I made no direct
> sexual advances and with whom I displayed unflagging politeness.
I often wonder if you actually believe your own bullshit.
Tom Allen
> suz...@imbris.com wrote:
>> Then you're missing out on a lot of good insights.
>
> You don't get it. I don't read this group for male insights on sex. I read it
> to socialize with sexually expressive and potentially available women.
How does your wife feel about that? Has it been helping your current
relationship?
> Stop
> trying to make me use the group differently.
Translation: I'm going to be 14 years old, and there's nothing you can
do about it.
suzee
Too bad *you* don't get it. The rest of us (men and women) read this
group for everyone else's insights on sexuality and not for potentially
available partners. Stop trying to use it for something it's not.
sue
suzee
> Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
>> suz...@imbris.com wrote:
>>> Then you're missing out on a lot of good insights.
>>
>> You don't get it. I don't read this group for male insights on sex. I
>> read it to socialize with sexually expressive and potentially
>> available women.
>
> How does your wife feel about that? Has it been helping your current
> relationship?
>
> > Stop trying to make me use the group differently.
>
> Translation: I'm going to be 14 years old, and there's nothing you can
> do about it.
Right, he expects all of us to change to accomodate him. Although I
don't remember people trying to 'make him use the group differently'.
We're just trying to explain what the purpose of the group is, which
happens to be different than he thinks it is.
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Too bad *you* don't get it. The rest of us (men and women) read this
>group for everyone else's insights on sexuality and not for potentially
>available partners. Stop trying to use it for something it's not.
Look, people participate in even the most innocuous social activities for a
myriad reasons. Some people go to parties for free food and drink. Others go
because it's too hot or cold at home. Others go to see old friends or make new
ones, while still others go to try and pick up new romantic or sexual partners.
This group is like a big old party that can be used by different people for
different purposes.
Orlando
Desideria
I have to wonder if you've had any luck with that in...how long,
Orlando? A year or more?
I've suggested this to you before, hon. I think it might be worth your
while to reconsider where you're putting your effort, and why.
Yes, I can discuss that with you more, privately, but that part of my
opinion hasn't changed since we first discussed it...not unless you've
had successes here of which I'm unaware. Right now, it seems to me
that you're beating your head repeatedly against a brick wall and then
feeling frustrated when it hurts.
Desideria
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>I've suggested this to you before, hon. I think it might be worth your
>while to reconsider where you're putting your effort, and why.
School will be starting in less than a month and I will be putting most of my
effort there.
>Yes, I can discuss that with you more, privately, but that part of my
>opinion hasn't changed since we first discussed it...not unless you've
>had successes here of which I'm unaware. Right now, it seems to me
>that you're beating your head repeatedly against a brick wall and then
>feeling frustrated when it hurts.
I'm not asking for special treatment here. It's natural for any hot blooded
straight male to react to sexually explicit women by trying to have sex with
them. Any other reaction or procedure has been carefully drummed into
emasculated men by the remnants of feminism. I'm trying to make the point that
sexually explicit speech can and even should compel men to react by trying to
flirt or score.
Orlando
Gordon
> erate...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>>Yes, and then all those grey areas regarding infidelity and such.
>
> Is there really no acceptable social space, even on Second Life, for people to
> cheat? Society seems more tolerant of guns, drugs and corporate theft than
> people getting their cyber rocks off while in relationships. Why this insane
> moralizing about infidelity? All it's doing is making people want to cheat
> more, compounded with the frustration of not being able to find willing
> partners.
>
The movie industry is about "fantasy". Movies allow us to explore ideas
beyond the "real" world. In fact this ng is also in this area.
Comic books did so 50 years ago. Maybe still do.
Gordon
> Tiffany wrote:
>
>> Well, people ON Second Life don't have a problem with it, that is for sure!
>
> Tiffany. You're back!!!
>
It would appear so.
Gordon
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:55:32 -0400, Orlando Enrique Fiol
><of...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>tiffa...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>Well, people ON Second Life don't have a problem with it, that is for sure!
>>
>>infidelity?
>>
>>Orlando
>
> Orlando, I need to piggyback on you for a moment if you don't mind....
>
> Irfon, I think you posted about Playstation Home? If so, I've signed
> up for a Playstation Network ID, but I don't seem able to get on to
> home. I don't have a PS 3 :-(, only a PS 2 that isn't hooked up to the
> Internet.
>
> Do you know if Playstation Home can be accessed by computer, or if I
> *must* have a PS3 to do it?
>
> Thanks much! :-)
>
>
Sub thread formed yes?
Desideria
Yep, and exited already... ;-)
Desideria
Desideria
Oh, boy.
Do you have any asbestos undergarments, Orlando??? You may need
them...(just a heads' up here) ;-)
Desideria
Desideria
Actually, I wouldn't be at all surprised if folks are 'cheating', as
it were, in Second Life. I just brought up what I thought was an
interesting philosophical question regarding whether a person could be
considered to have sex on some level if their avatar did.
Desideria
Tom Allen
> Do you have any asbestos undergarments, Orlando??? You may need
> them...(just a heads' up here) ;-)
Des, Orlando Asshat has been doing this for several years now. I suspect
that he works one group until he's pissed off just about everybody, then
moves on to another. It's telling that he will not engage men at all. I
think Suzee guessed right when she said that he killfiles men.
And I guess he must have had some small success with emailing women, or
else he wouldn't continue to try this route. From what I understand, a
lot of women get tired of the emails pretty quickly, and he then gets
offended that they want to stop the communication. Then he launches into
a rant on how women are tempting him, etc., etc.
Tom Allen
> Actually, I wouldn't be at all surprised if folks are 'cheating', as
> it were, in Second Life. I just brought up what I thought was an
> interesting philosophical question regarding whether a person could be
> considered to have sex on some level if their avatar did.
Maybe we need to define cheating vis-a-vis 2nd Life or other virtual
communities.
I mean, since it's only an avatar that's engaging in sex, is it really
cheating? Is it on the same scale as flirting online?
Desideria
wrote:
>Desideria wrote:
>
>> Actually, I wouldn't be at all surprised if folks are 'cheating', as
>> it were, in Second Life. I just brought up what I thought was an
>> interesting philosophical question regarding whether a person could be
>> considered to have sex on some level if their avatar did.
>
>Maybe we need to define cheating vis-a-vis 2nd Life or other virtual
>communities.
>
>I mean, since it's only an avatar that's engaging in sex, is it really
>cheating? Is it on the same scale as flirting online?
True--or as cyber sex, which some can define as cheating or not,
depending on the person.
After all, it's really IM communication with another real person.
Desideria
Desideria
wrote:
>Desideria wrote:
>
>> Do you have any asbestos undergarments, Orlando??? You may need
>> them...(just a heads' up here) ;-)
>
>Des, Orlando Asshat has been doing this for several years now. I suspect
>that he works one group until he's pissed off just about everybody, then
>moves on to another. It's telling that he will not engage men at all. I
>think Suzee guessed right when she said that he killfiles men.
>
>And I guess he must have had some small success with emailing women, or
>else he wouldn't continue to try this route. From what I understand, a
>lot of women get tired of the emails pretty quickly, and he then gets
>offended that they want to stop the communication. Then he launches into
>a rant on how women are tempting him, etc., etc.
Tom, you may've picked up through context that I've been emailing with
Orlando for some time, as a friend. I truly was looking for an answer,
and he and I are discussing the matter some, privately.
Whatever you may think of him, it seems to me that he's given this
group quite a bit more activity lately than it's had for some time
<EG>.
Desideria
suzee
> Tom, you may've picked up through context that I've been emailing with
> Orlando for some time, as a friend. I truly was looking for an answer,
> and he and I are discussing the matter some, privately.
>
> Whatever you may think of him, it seems to me that he's given this
> group quite a bit more activity lately than it's had for some time
> <EG>.
There is that....
sue
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Tom, you may've picked up through context that I've been emailing with
>Orlando for some time, as a friend. I truly was looking for an answer,
>and he and I are discussing the matter some, privately.
Desideria is a perfect case of how easy it is for me to befriend a woman once
sexual possibilities have been discussed and a mutually satisfactory conclusion
has been reached. Desideria is in a long-term relationship, is somewhat older
than me and lives on the opposite coast, all of which make her undesirable as a
potential sexual partner, but very wonderful as a good friend. Aside from my
initial inquiries, Desideria can attest that I have never again pestered her or
propositioned sex. Sue, on the other hand, baffles me. For close to a year, we
emailed often and even talked on the phone because she had given me her
telephone number. She was then preparing to move and be with a man she'd met
online. Sue is considerably older than me and lives very far away, so I never
proposed or even inquired about sex with her. Yet, she has inexplicably
forbidden me to email her. It must be because I do not stand for the values she
wants to have in a friend, which has nothing to do with sexual propositions.
>Whatever you may think of him, it seems to me that he's given this
>group quite a bit more activity lately than it's had for some time
><EG>.
It's good to get you folks riled up about important topics.
Orlando
suzee
> deside...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Tom, you may've picked up through context that I've been emailing with
>> Orlando for some time, as a friend. I truly was looking for an answer,
>> and he and I are discussing the matter some, privately.
>
> Desideria is a perfect case of how easy it is for me to befriend a woman once
> sexual possibilities have been discussed and a mutually satisfactory conclusion
> has been reached. Desideria is in a long-term relationship, is somewhat older
> than me and lives on the opposite coast, all of which make her undesirable as a
> potential sexual partner, but very wonderful as a good friend. Aside from my
> initial inquiries, Desideria can attest that I have never again pestered her or
> propositioned sex. Sue, on the other hand, baffles me. For close to a year, we
> emailed often and even talked on the phone because she had given me her
> telephone number. She was then preparing to move and be with a man she'd met
> online. Sue is considerably older than me and lives very far away, so I never
> proposed or even inquired about sex with her. Yet, she has inexplicably
> forbidden me to email her. It must be because I do not stand for the values she
> wants to have in a friend, which has nothing to do with sexual propositions.
You suggested that instead of going to meet the man I met online for the
first time (didn't decide to move to be with him for several months
after that and we had visited again) that I should go meet you. You felt
we had a 'rapport', a connection which I certainly didn't feel. You
still persisted in trying to communicate with me even when I told you I
didn't feel the same thing you did. After you persisted in several such
calls, I became weary of trying to explain to you I did not feel that
way toward you and then asked you to stop contacting me. Which btw, was
only a few months, not nearly a year. Then there was your wife.....
Yes, he was still married at the time he was trying to put the moves on
me and while they were not getting along, gave no indication he was
separating from her. My mistake was giving you my contact information in
the first place, which I did because I thought I could offer you some
help and advice about your marriage. I had done so with another person,
but obviously, that was not what you were seeking. So yeah, I guess you
could say you don't have the values I want in a friend.
sue
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>You suggested that instead of going to meet the man I met online for the
>first time (didn't decide to move to be with him for several months
>after that and we had visited again) that I should go meet you. You felt
>we had a 'rapport', a connection which I certainly didn't feel.
With all due respect, that conversation never took place. I was never attracted
to you and never felt any romantic or sexual chemistry with you.
>You still persisted in trying to communicate with me even when I told you I
>didn't feel the same thing you did. After you persisted in several such
>calls, I became weary of trying to explain to you I did not feel that
>way toward you and then asked you to stop contacting me.
Even if your invention were actually true, you could have offered me
friendship, which I could have chosen to accept or decline.
>Which btw, was only a few months, not nearly a year. Then there was your
wife.....
>Yes, he was still married at the time he was trying to put the moves on
>me and while they were not getting along, gave no indication he was
>separating from her.
If I recall correctly, I was already separated by that time.
>My mistake was giving you my contact information in
>the first place, which I did because I thought I could offer you some
>help and advice about your marriage. I had done so with another person,
>but obviously, that was not what you were seeking. So yeah, I guess you
>could say you don't have the values I want in a friend.
Sue, I wanted nothing more than friendship with you, as evidenced by what we
actually discussed during my telephone calls to you. I attempted to pick your
sagacious brain regarding my marital difficulties. I never put the moves on
you.
Orlando
suzee
> suz...@imbris.com wrote:
>> You suggested that instead of going to meet the man I met online for the
>> first time (didn't decide to move to be with him for several months
>> after that and we had visited again) that I should go meet you. You felt
>> we had a 'rapport', a connection which I certainly didn't feel.
>
> With all due respect, that conversation never took place. I was never attracted
> to you and never felt any romantic or sexual chemistry with you.
BS. You mentioned this 'rapport' several times during our first
conversation. Now whether you meant sexual or mental, I'm not sure, but
it seemed to be an attraction to me.
>> You still persisted in trying to communicate with me even when I told you I
>> didn't feel the same thing you did. After you persisted in several such
>> calls, I became weary of trying to explain to you I did not feel that
>> way toward you and then asked you to stop contacting me.
>
> Even if your invention were actually true, you could have offered me
> friendship, which I could have chosen to accept or decline.
I got tired of your self-focused conversation and you didn't seem to
want to listen to me. Similar to your attitude here.
>> Which btw, was only a few months, not nearly a year. Then there was your
> wife.....
>> Yes, he was still married at the time he was trying to put the moves on
>> me and while they were not getting along, gave no indication he was
>> separating from her.
>
> If I recall correctly, I was already separated by that time.
No you weren't at first. By our last conversation, you were.
>> My mistake was giving you my contact information in
>> the first place, which I did because I thought I could offer you some
>> help and advice about your marriage. I had done so with another person,
>> but obviously, that was not what you were seeking. So yeah, I guess you
>> could say you don't have the values I want in a friend.
>
> Sue, I wanted nothing more than friendship with you, as evidenced by what we
> actually discussed during my telephone calls to you. I attempted to pick your
> sagacious brain regarding my marital difficulties. I never put the moves on
> you.
Not directly no, but you were looking for more than friendship.
sue