The Hazards of Online Dating

Jenni wrote:

... But yeah, it feels like a mute signing furiously to a blind person.

Good one.

Jenni wrote:

If I could force myself to forget that one of the players here is a friend and just step back and look with a satanic eye to lesser magic I'd say that these two are in an s and m dynamic already.She's got him cuckolded listening to her and her conquests and still playing the dutiful "friend"(partner). The real problem is none of it was negotiated and it only serves one party's needs.  

How could this look otherwise?  It's hard to imagine.
I wonder if any of their mutual friends have an opinion they've dared to share?

Jenni wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

You don't know my friend at all, or our relationship, yet you seem to want to insinuate by comparison, that I am somehow 'hanging around and begging' like the guy Jenni is describing.

Pardon me, I mean this in the nicest attempting to help way- but are you sure you aren't? You don't have to convince me, this is not part of the debate but a friendly aside, but check with you in your mind. Because from out here, the frustration that leads you to want to go "friend this!" may actually be related to her reaction. You may not feel you are begging, but she may sense the quiet frustration and desperation. Or may think she does. Human communication is not foolproof, many a misunderstanding has been had over such subtleties.

Okay, when you put it that way... I suppose it's possible she might, I don't really know. I wouldn't have thought so. I can't read her mind despite how well I think I may know her. I know I don't feel I am. Fair enough. I'll give you that.

Jenni wrote:

I recognize the situation I mentioned is different because she sought to actively be sure he had no interest in her that way and he actively lied.

Which I have never done.

Jenni wrote:

And my larger point that this happens to all of us at one time or another still stands. I've seen men treated like shit by women way hotter than I while I stand there thinking "I'd never act like that." And yet, the men take it too. Men must like bad girls-

Definitely some do.

Jenni wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

I do know she would be very angry and upset if I ended our friendship simply because she wouldn't have sex with me. That would be very cruel of me

Are you sure? Because it is also very cruel to you to have to be in someone's life when you want more and can't have it.

I see your point... and it is a good point. However, I would rather be in her life and not have sex, than not be in her life. My fondness for her outweighs any mild resentment I might harbour. I feel anyway.

Jenni wrote:

And I have to wonder is some of the resentment you seem to have a result of this? She may be angry, but she's an adult, she'll live. And it wouldn't be you ending it because she wouldn't have sex with you, it would be you ending it because it hurts the heart to have unrequited love right in front of you. To expect that of you is cruel.

Again, that is a very good point and something that never occurred to me.

Jenni wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

I just get frustrated sometimes because I know we are close, but it seems like an excuse to not tell me she's not attracted to me physically. I'm not her type. She might be afraid of hurting my feelings. I get a little resentful because I know about her sexual exploits with virtual strangers... who often take advantage of her,

And see this takes me in the other direction....so she's nice enough that she doesn't want to hurt your feelings but you are pissed because she's out screwing people she's actually attracted to? That's just one you gotta get over. But I'm telling you, you keep carrying that resentfulness into that friendship and you'll kill it as surely as poison will kill a plant. If she's nice and likes you it may take longer but it will happen. It won't be anyone's fault- no one can help how they feel. But it is toxic. And you are the one bringing it in.

That's three very good points in a row. I can't really argue with that.

Jenni wrote:

(Have you considered that backing away may even show her a life without you and prompt the interest that you desire? Sort of the absence makes the heart grow fonder rule. How does she act if you mention a sexual conquest of your own? (make one up if need be) )

I haven't, but only because I know she's looking for someone more successful in life than myself. That's something I've neglected to mention, but is no less important to what she wants in a partner. Her ideal partner at any rate, if not her one night stand kind of guy.

Jenni wrote:

Lisa wrote:

I'm sure there are nuances to your particular situation that make it more than satisfying for you.

I disagree. I think she may be really using him. He's letting her and then fussing about it but I don't think he's the one in charge in this dynamic.

Guilty as charged.

Jenni wrote:

I know. And you see I'm trying to bridge that. But yeah, it feels like a mute signing furiously to a blind person.

Like I said before, I don't understand it either. It's something with Lisa'a writing (your writing Lisa), I'm not sure if its the ambiguity or intent of what you (Lisa) are writing to me. But I just find there is way too much possible interpretation and I always get the feeling you (Lisa) are not being sincere and straightforward, so I hold many of your responses with suspicion. There is a certain point where I spend so much time trying to figure out what you meant that I give up and ask you for clarification.

Thing is Lisa you never clearly responded to my responses, so I am left with more questions than answers in what you communicated to me. I can't read minds, so if I have to spend too much time trying to derive the meaning from a sentence you've made I will just move on.

The mute/blind person analog is apt. I was tempted to say early on I feel like we speak a whole different version of English sometimes.

Jenni wrote:

If I could force myself to forget that one of the players here is a friend and just step back and look with a satanic eye to lesser magic I'd say that these two are in an s and m dynamic already. She's got him cuckolded listening to her and her conquests and still playing the dutiful "friend"(partner). The real problem is none of it was negotiated and it only serves one party's needs.

Good analogy - and exactly what I meant by S & M when I mentioned it much earlier on in the thread.

Thank you Jenni, you have given me a lot to think about that never occurred to me before.

Thanks for that Richard! I had read the original hoopla but hadn't seen this yet. I caught that- that it wasn't recognized until a man said it, but early on I learned you have to cite men to men usually- or at least I did in school. (Didn't feel so bad at DU, as much as that frat boy atmosphere was there the men of DU are still more open minded than most.) Anyways, thanks for that!

Lisa wrote:

How could this look otherwise? It's hard to imagine.

Well, no I do see how SAI could have found himself manipulated into this position. I have been there. Jay Porch in sixth grade, Kyle Shoeman in high school, I tortured myself remaining in their worlds as a friend when I wanted so much more. And yet, like Stephen I felt compelled to stay as a friend. I was a jealous bitch if I didn't. But we are adults now and we have to see things for what they are. And this does look unhealthy to me- at least from here.

Lisa wrote:

I wonder if any of their mutual friends have an opinion they've dared to share?

I wonder too. I would love for her to be brought in so we could debate it, but I know that's unrealistic. But yes, I wonder what third parties who know both think of it, do they see it as we do? Are we missing important nuances that SAI doesn't know are important and therefore isn't sharing? It's like a copy of a copy- we don't have a reliable/objective picture.

To answer some of your questions here, no, I wouldn't feel comfortable, nor do I think she would feel comfortable if she knew I was discussing personal stuff about her online.
Also, we have known each other for many years, and have been in and out of each others lives in the interim. The few mutual friends we shared are no longer in each of our lives to really know how I personally feel about her today.

SAI2 wrote:

Okay, when you put it that way... I suppose it's possible she might, I don't really know. I wouldn't have thought so. I can't read her mind despite how well I think I may know her. I know I don't feel I am. Fair enough. I'll give you that.

That's all I want- just be open to it, keep it in your mind, roll it around.

Because let me reiterate- it may be your very willingness to be this way about it that marks you as not her "bad boy" type. I don't know, I would have to see her interact with a guy she's after, but it may be that your Milqtoast acceptance of the situation is contributing to your predicament. Maybe.

Also let me add she may not know she's not telling you. So much of what we do is so subconscious she may be put off (sexually) by something she can't even put her finger on.

SAI2 wrote:

Which I have never done.

Noted. No, it's opposite. In her case I feel she was misled in your case I feel it's you getting the rawer deal. Because you are a NiceGuy I don't mean that sarcastically either. This is the flip side of the frustration that women feel with Nice Guys. While we feel what we feel I suspect there is a lot of genuine abuse of NiceGuys by women too immature, too jaded, too mean to not do it if they can get away with it. Both sexes experiences are genuine and valid. But I maintain that Nice Guys are victims of the same hetero/alpha patriarchy that women are. So are gay men, trans men, often men of color. Most of you guys have no reason to be so skeptical of the patriarchy - it fucks you too.

SAI2 wrote:

However, I would rather be in her life and not have sex, than not be in her life. My fondness for her outweighs any mild resentment I might harbour. I feel anyway.

Ok, I can dig that. But do you a favor and treat it like a smoke detector and check it twice a year. And read Savage Love if you don't.

Do any of you read that? I'd love to know if this chick is violating the GGG rule.

SAI2 wrote:

I haven't, but only because I know she's looking for someone more successful in life than myself. That's something I've neglected to mention, but is no less important to what she wants in a partner. Her ideal partner at any rate, if not her one night stand kind of guy.

Ah hah!

LIIIISAAAA! We have liftoff. There's the problem right there- tell me I'm wrong.   

I'll only share my thoughts on this if asked but here is that key that was missing that I said SAI may not even know is important. Now, the picture begins to get some meat on the bones.

She has no respect for you, man. (claps hand over mouth)



Lisa's completely sincere. I know her well and adore her. But she almost skips stuff, I think her brain goes faster than her fingers because you almost have to know her and be able to fill in words sometimes. Take her at face value.

For example when she says there are nuances that are satisfying to you she's barking up the same tree I was when I said what I said about the power dynamic. You are making a trade here, but you are simply upset with what you get from the trade. But you still want to make the trade. You insist you'd rather have her in your life with no sex than not have her and yet - this is not satisfactory enough that there is some degree of discomfort ranging from frustration to outright resentment. She can correct me if I'm wrong but I think she means exactly what she said that there is something about this that suits you. (Possibly more than you want to admit? idk)

SAI2 wrote:

Good analogy - and exactly what I meant by S & M when I mentioned it much earlier on in the thread.

Oh, ok. Well then if you were to draw a venn diagram that would be Femdom which is a subsection of s&m. And remember, it's consensual.
You can take the power back at any moment.

Jenni wrote:

You began this exercise with your lack of understanding about a lady friend and situations involving how people approach dating. I'm trying to answer honestly about how women think and what leads us to what we do. Getting childish and basically saying "two can play at that" is not going to help you understand what you said you sought.

But that is not what I was doing. I was simply pointing out that two wrongs don't make a right. My point still stands that if you can be childish, why can't I? It may not resolve our difficulty here, but it wasn't meant to. It was meant to point out that you are no better than me in that you should have some special privilege toward childishness, just because you are a woman.

Jenni wrote:

The fact of the matter is that it's mostly men's beeswax that ensnares women. It's stuff you set out to do that inevitably puts a yoke on our neck.

Don't you see how such statements are, at the very least, incomplete or inadequate? Compulsive male behavior perhaps ensnares some women (whatever beeswax and ensnares means), I don't know. I question this stuff that inevitably yokes as well. These statements are so inflammatory and ambiguous, so sexist, that I can't in any way accept any aspects of truth that may lay beneath their words. Please keep in mind I am not claiming you are wrong, I am simply questioning your wording.

You were so noticeably careful in the last posts regarding my relation ship with my friend I guess I am hoping you will be, or at least can try to be more so that way with this discussion about the overall male.

I guess it's because I see women's beeswax ensnaring men, and the stuff you want making us behave the way we do, being a large aspect of why we behave as we do that you and I come to lager heads on this subject. I don't want to be in a perpetual war of the sexes with you on this. I do want to find some amicable, common ground for understanding each's different world views and behaviour.

Jenni wrote:

Now, to you this may be completely justifiable by circumstances and nature and outside forces. But to us, we see how much it benefits you men and how reluctant you are to end the practices that serve you. We see the differences, we see the way we are treated every day in small ways called microagressions. Those things are not concoctions. Nor are they of the past.

There's a difference between justifying ones actions or behavior, and explaining them. I was attempting to do the later. Causal factors of psychosis and serial murder do not justify them. They merely provide explanation as to how and why they come about. Evolution and natural forces do not justify... killing in nature. It goes a long way to explaining how and why it happens though.

That is all I'm saying when I refer to evolution and natural forces, or the primal desperate circumstances which formed us as we are. It does not excuse injustice or subjugation of gender or violence or anything else immoral as we understand human morality. But it does explain how and why humanity has turned out as it has.

I'll stick with the psychotic killer as analogy here because it seems strangely apt to me. Ted Bundy and Jeffery Dahmer were notorious serial killers. Each of them would have been, I'm sure, if while alive they had been examined scientifically, clinically psychotic. It is not fair, in my view, nor accurate for someone from outside who knows nothing about psychosis and mental illness, to come in and say that they were responsible for their actions. It would be accurate to say they were compulsively driven, and were responsible only causally for what they did (in a similar way a parasitic insect is causally responsible for using its host as an unwitting vehicle for its own survival). But the persons Bundy and Dahmer would have been were they healthy individuals lacking such psychosis which led them to serial murder, cannot be held responsible in the same way I can say you are responsible for willingly deciding to run a red light and thereby unintentionally kill a pedestrian. Most mentally healthy people are not serial killers, so we know there is something neurologically different about them that makes them do what they do. Or they very likely wouldn't do it otherwise.

I would (and actually do) agree with your assessment of men generally if you would acknowledged that they were also victims driven by forces beyond their control that if they had the benefit of a 21st century understanding and self-awareness of themselves, and understanding and empathy for females,back then, they would not necessarily have behaved the same way and history would have turned out quite differently. It is true, there are many males in the world that still seem to be stuck in their sexist traditions, religious beliefs, and masculine superiority complexes. They are slaves in a very real sense, to their own natures and upbringings - and I don't use those terms by accident. I don't argue with your pov as a woman, I do however object to what it is specifically that you are blaming. I am in firm agreement with you on this subject whether you are aware of this or not. But as a man who doesn't feel he has done anything in his life to warrant being lumped in with the macho assholes of this world who want to control and subjugate women socially, politically and often personally... I take great umbrage with how you are expressing your angst toward and about them. If feminism wants to make some headway with men, as opposed to being as dominating, aggressive and ignorant as many men are, they may have to take a slightly different tact - rather than hold them solely responsible, rather, they are unwitting and unconscious vehicles of their primal selves. Not sure if that works, but its much more conducive to cooperation than simply calling them rapists, murderers, and overall monsters or parasites, as many more extreme feminists do.

Jenni, I'm really on your side. I am. Sincerely. This man wants to make peace with woman kind... but not if I have to accept being labelled or described as a vermin, disease, monster, etc, simply because so many of my fellow brothers in arms are sexist assholes and unconscious slaves of their own natures - unwilling (and unable I bet in some cases) to change or become aware of the damage they do. To others but also to themselves.

Jenni wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

Yet you ironically use, "circumstances gave males..."

It wasn't meant ironically.
Circumstances like evolution of size difference gave men something (an advantage in physical confrontation) that they are happy to use now in various forms (abuse, rape) and the other men who may not stoop to such levels certainly aren't knocking themselves out to make such abuses of what nature gave them punishable with something that's a deterrent. That's what I'm accusing. Men use the excuse of nature to say "boys will be boys".

Men and women do actually. But I do agree. When I said 'ironically' I wasn't saying you meant the word ironically, I was saying it was ironic that you used the phrase.... it was ironic to me.

Jenni wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

Yes, exactly my point.

Then why hasn't modern man created a system to address the natural abuses that will happen with such a difference in power? Why is there still such a massive movement against our very human rights? Again, we don't concoct this.

In my mind it does not follow that modern man should have the where with all to create such a system if they are still dealing with the beginnings of introspection within themselves (as slaves of their own natures) and all the confusion and other problems in the world they are also having responsibility foisted upon them. I was simply noticing and pointing out the irony of your statement which seemed, perhaps unintentionally, to acknowledge what I was trying to say. That we all are to one degree or another slaves of our very natures, regardless of our individual upbringings.

Jenni wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

Women do need to demand rights, etc, but not at the expense of truth. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.  

Says a man, who will never have to worry about...

Sorry. I should have been a little more careful and clearer here. I guess all I was trying to say there was that we can fight to right a wrong, or an injustice, but if we are doing it for the wrong reasons, or are blaming the wrong thing or cause, it is a shallow victory we may in effect have learned nothing from - even if we think or believe we have. It's like wrongful incarceration - satisfying to put someone away at the time, but the issue may rear its ugly head once again in the future because the real perp was not caught. It is the reason for the phrase 'history repeats'... but it usually only does that if we have not learned from our mistakes or understood the actual causes which provoked our problems in the first place, in order to stop the repetition from coming around again.

Jenni wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

 It was no less and no more jackassy than you were being, denigrating men.

O'really? Where? Go back and look at that part of the exchange. The part where you suddenly turned snarky was in regards to point I made about female porn. It wasn't technically a point, men invented vibrators because they were literally clueless about female health. So I know it was snark but it was snark completely unrelated to what you were responding to. Which tells me you asked for an opinion and now you are pissed that you are hearing it. I actually have no clue which part you think I'm denigrating men with and I have no idea how any words I could ever say could denigrate a man any worse than the way we are denigrated...  but I do know that I don't think badly of men as a group or I'd not be so pissed. (  ) .............. I do actually think you men can do better. But regardless don't be pissed at me for laying out what a lot of women think. I'm a friendly envoy from the other side. I actually think there's hope for you men. You can slap me down for the message but that won't help you bridge that canyon NoCo is so fantabulous at exacerbating.

I would hesitantly and cautiously draw your attention to the bolded part in the middle of your paragraph above...   

Jenni wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

No, I'm not assuming the best at all.

Then help me understand why we still fight for rights...

My context was meant only to stress, that I was not assuming best... I was trying to describe the causal natural forces (note: NOT responsibility) which resulted in our natures as they are. It is a vicious, savage, but tragic and sad story, the history of mankind.

Which brings up an uncomfortable question that seems to want to surface in me at this juncture; if man's nature is naturally and genetically more brutal, more aggressive, then trying to tame the beast, as it were, is that not a bit like the cruel practice of declawing felines? I hesitantly want to use the word 'denature' here in this context. Males may have certain genetic predispositions to their more 'un-civilized' aspects of their natures that if removed, may cause them as males, harm, no?

Now before you get on your horse to do battle, just hear me out. I am NOT saying that justifies their natures or anything they do. But it is an interesting question to me. We don't, or shouldn't get angry at our cat for bringing it's dead prey into our homes... we allow felines their natures - they are, after all, felines. Male humans are not. But in principle, we are all a part of the animal kingdom. Should we not be trying to at least find out if denaturing males of certain behaviors isn't going to not only be detrimental to males, but to our species?

I have distinctly heard the mantra amoung many women today more than ever before - "Where are all the REAL men, the MANLY men, these days. I want to be man-handled. I want a man who KNOWS what he wants and is not afraid to TAKE it... etc".

I know one or more of you want to scream out that I am justifying their more... questionable behaviors here, but I'm not. I'm simply questioning just how far we go to justifiably accommodate one gender's desires and concerns over another gender's nature. I know, I know... men, it can be argued, have been trying to do something similar to women... via subjugation, attention to beauty, etc, okay, fine. But I'm trying to see this in the larger picture as to what is best for both genders and our species. My first impulse is to say better males get denatured than females be perpetually "abused" by them. But then what becomes of men? What makes a man a man?

There is a whole aspect here too that no one has ever really discussed. The idea of just how much women are responsible for a man's behavior. I don't believe a proper and complete discourse about gender issues can be discussed with just how women are being "yoked" by men, without bringing in the flipside - how men are, and yes, have been... "yoked" by women. Just a thought I'm putting out there.

Jenni wrote:

Quagmire is a cartoon, but he works because people know who that is. Most people know a Quagmire.

I don't. I recognize a certain single exaggerated quality in the character that remind me of qualities in maybe one man I've known, but they weren't pertaining to anything sexual, more his way of talking in a staccato nervous way very quickly, coupled with his being geeky and somewhat Big Bang Theory-ish. But to me this character of Quagmire is more a caricature or collection of exaggerated qualities that I would imagine to be very difficult to find all combined in one individual man. I'm not denying what you say, I just don't know anyone in real life who can come close to behaving as he does in Family Guy.

Jenni wrote:

Skeazy are hard to describe but women know it when they see it. He's the guy you know you don't want to get drunk around. He's the guy you don't want to get your number. He's the guy you know you don't want to have sex with because he just doesn't seem like he'd give a shit about you in bed. He's the type who secretly films women without permission. Or intentionally rubs against them on trains.

Fair enough, but those are all qualities or behaviors that do not necessarily just show up in anyone remotely like Quagmire. There are many men out there who don't give a shit about the women they bed. Many I'm sure secretly film their sex acts without permission, especially given the pervasiveness of technology today. Many men probably rub against women not just on trains, but anywhere there might be a crowd of people. Skeazy sounds like, to me, based on how you are describing this quality, or collection of qualities, like someone who is afraid of simply approaching a woman honestly and openly, for whatever reasons, and rather tries to get some kind of satisfaction or titilation from getting away with violating privacy, personal space and body, and person - for mild sexual pleasure. Sneaky yet sleazy at the same time - which explains the word Skeazy quite nicely. Would that be an accurate description?

Jenni wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

I was joking.

Yeah....ok.... But seriously, we hate that crap. We're not virgins, madonnas, goddesses, whatever. We don't break and we fuck up and our farts stink too. And putting anyone on a pedestal is going to end badly. Men do this. And it creates problems. If you don't do it great, pass it on to your buddies.

Okay, I'm turning on careful mode here on my utility belt.   

Firstly, I don't believe all women "hate that crap" as you put it. In fact I know and have known one hell of a lot of women who out right love it and are not afraid to admit as much. Loudly. While standing on pedestals (or tables, chairs, etc.). I will single out the term "Goddess" here as one particular favorite term. Many women adore being adored, and called goddesses. You may not like that, and many of your like-minded female friends may not like it. But it is an undeniable fact that there are oodles of women who love being described as and treated as if... they were goddesses. And they feel absolutely no shame in admitting it either. Just saying.

... now farts, that's something else entirely. I have perhaps in the entirety of my life only heard maybe one or two women fart. I was also near adolescent before I realized women actually shit. Yeah, that's right, pull down their nickers, sit on a toilet and let go of a big brown log. Never occurred to me. I was stunned by this when the realization struck. I always thought that when they went to the ladies rooms they were primping themselves and maybe peeing, at worst, but not in my wildest dreams did I ever imagine that the same things that dropped from our filthy male asses, dropped from theirs too. It disturbed me somewhat at the time, but I got over it when I learned about menstruation, etc.

Yep. I was a deprived child. The women in my family I think unconsciously tried to hide their animal, human-like functions.  

Jenni wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

Seems a popular strategy though, whether it actually serves its purpose or not.

Hence my purpose in vocalization. It's a strategy that needs to be stopped. I speak up to and piss off my women friends too, btw. I think people need to stop doing the stuff they are doing before we just really fuck ourselves needlessly.

Well, fine, but... I don't think that same advice should be given to women in the more non-western, sexist, male dominated countries.

SAI2 wrote:

My point still stands that if you can be childish, why can't I?

If you honestly thought I was being childish why are you still discussing this with me?
Really.
I'm not being childish, I am offering what I think is going on in the situations in which you have shown interest. I'm offering the thoughts you asked for. That you have chosen the label "childish" doesn't bother me or make me want to alter anything I have said.

SAI2 wrote:

It was meant to point out that you are no better than me in that you should have some special privilege toward childishness, just because you are a woman.

But that's not a lesson I need, nor did anyone appoint you to teach it to me. I have honestly laid out what I think here, if you don't like it, so be it. I have no lesson to learn here.

SAI2 wrote:

Don't you see how such statements are, at the very least, incomplete or inadequate? Compulsive male behavior perhaps ensnares some women (whatever beeswax and ensnares means), I don't know. I question this stuff that inevitably yokes as well. These statements are so inflammatory and ambiguous, so sexist, that I can't in any way accept any aspects of truth that may lay beneath their words. Please keep in mind I am not claiming you are wrong, I am simply questioning your wording.

That < is the exact line of thinking presented to women like me over and over again. No. I am perfectly satisfied that my view is damn accurate. You may not know, but I do. Because I'm a woman, I'm pretty sure I'm an expert on the female experience and what causes us issues. The fact that you can even see what to us is reality as "sexist" is all I have to know to know that there is no way to reach a place where you will hear what is. But that's ok. It's not my job to convince you. You admit you don't know you just don't like the smell of it. Fine. Truth sucks. No, I am not being any of those things. Neither are any of the many women saying the same things I am in the blogosphere or teh internets or whatever. You don't want to hear it, fine, no one is going to make you. Carry on with your illusions.

 

SAI2 wrote:

You were so noticeably careful in the last posts regarding my relation ship with my friend I guess I am hoping you will be, or at least can try to be more so that way with this discussion about the overall male.

Nope. I don't coddle the men. You decided up there that the fact the that I think men are the source of most of women's problems is not just the way our lives are but rather "sexist". That is such a huge display of privilege I can't even begin to tip toe around that. It's like when white people tell me how racist black people are.

SAI2 wrote:

I guess it's because I see women's beeswax ensnaring men

Really? Do tell. Tell me about the time you had to drive two states away to get a vasectomy. Or about how your right to condoms is in question. Or driving. Tell me about the time the village women got together and kept you from driving yourself. Or going to school. What about when the village wise women decided you shouldn't be allowed to go to school.
No, what comments like that are about is sex and what men see as the ease with which our sex gets us things and the fact that we control it and don't share it with the man in question. It's not an actual fact that our beeswax ties you up, we don't have that kind of power. But what men who say that sort of thing don't realize is that their view of our life is not our actual life. The fact that you project that we have the power to ensnare onto us doesn't actually make our lives easier.

SAI2 wrote:

There's a difference between justifying ones actions or behavior, and explaining them.

Is there, really?

SAI2 wrote:

I'll stick with the psychotic killer as analogy here because it seems strangely apt to me. Ted Bundy and Jeffery Dahmer were notorious serial killers. Each of them would have been, I'm sure, if while alive they had been examined scientifically, clinically psychotic. It is not fair, in my view, nor accurate for someone from outside who knows nothing about psychosis and mental illness, to come in and say that they were responsible for their actions. It would be accurate to say they were compulsively driven, and were responsible only causally for what they did (in a similar way a parasitic insect is causally responsible for using its host as an unwitting vehicle for its own survival). But the persons Bundy and Dahmer would have been were they healthy individuals lacking such psychosis which led them to serial murder, cannot be held responsible in the same way I can say you are responsible for willingly deciding to run a red light and thereby unintentionally kill a pedestrian. Most mentally healthy people are not serial killers, so we know there is something neurologically different about them that makes them do what they do. Or they very likely wouldn't do it otherwise.

Whole different thread. I disagree. I think the psychopaths are more in control of what they do than the rest of us. I think we still lack a lot of knowledge in this area because the only ones we study are the ones that are caught. You don't have to keep repeating it, I'm simply not accepting men as passive victims of the circumstances they were put in.

SAI2 wrote:

But as a man who doesn't feel he has done anything in his life to warrant being lumped in with the macho assholes of this world who want to control and subjugate women socially, politically and often personally... I take great umbrage with how you are expressing your angst toward

You can take all the umbrage you want, that's an assumption you made. I never said I included you, in fact I think I even somewhere pointed out that many men were victims of that shit right along with the women. I also don't change how I express myself. You asked for thoughts, this is what I think. I'm not apologizing for it.

 

SAI2 wrote:

If feminism wants to make some headway with men,

I don't know what "feminism" wants to do. I'm not a spokeswoman for feminism, I thought common sense would say I am limited to the women I have some degree of contact with- that's not all of "feminism". For me, headway with men is not really in my top ten. I want rights and I don't really have a lot of respect for a system laid down by the very men who want to dictate my existence. I'm not even convinced a male created system can even come close to giving us real equality.  I don't think women should be bound by moral rules invented by their foes.

SAI2 wrote:

Jenni, I'm really on your side.

Why? I wasn't posting asking for thoughts about a situation. I know where I stand in this world. You want to be on a side go advocate for poor women to be able to get abortions and birth control or some other worthy cause. Go dip some grub at a soup kitchen. I see how all this goes down. I see the long term patterns and men will never let lose until they have absolutely no choice. The same way everything else that ought to offend every human being out there still goes on so will abuse of men's power. Because it serves those in charge and that dynamic is always easy to keep going. One of the most female friendly societies was the Vikings. They gave women rights, a sword, property, we even had the right to kill our rapist in that society- something some women are in jail for right now. It has been done. But it can't be held because what is going on in most of the world now serves the men who benefit from it so well there is no incentive to change. How on earth do you deny that intentional power grab?

 

SAI2 wrote:

This man wants to make peace with woman kind.

Do you read any feminist blogs?
It is hard to describe the enormous canyon between the things you say sexist as opposed to being as dominating, aggressive and ignorant if you would acknowledged that they were also victims and the way things are, from my (and many woman's ) perspectives. These are the very sort of things that the women who do read feminist blogs discuss and vent about. They are lines almost right out of an MRA manual. And I'm trying to be patient and challenge you to see that your ball of feels about the women you can't get is not equivalent to the systemic abuse of women at the hands of men but I just don't know how else to say it. If you had any urges to make peace with feminist women then the first thing you have to recognize is no matter how good your intentions we are not catering to you. We do not seek you to approve of how we go about it. And right now you reek of the enemy, you spout his lines and you wear his buzzwords well.

SAI2 wrote:

Men and women do actually.

Again, "oh you do it too!" Is not an argument for not dismantling the patriarchy anymore than "black people are racist too!" is an argument to keep slavery. And again, I reiterate my contention that women are sort of in praying mantis/ lab/ stress conditions. In the few societies where women have some autonomy and maybe even are free from the religious monogamy bit you have situations where the it all works together pretty well. It's just rare. But basically, we don't know what women do if given freedom because we never have been.

SAI2 wrote:

In my mind it does not follow that modern man should have the where with all to create such a system if they are still dealing with the beginnings of introspection within themselves (as slaves of their own natures) and all the confusion and other problems in the world they are also having responsibility foisted upon them.

The same men who went to the moon shouldn't have the wherewithal to give women rights? Dood. Seriously. I'm not three. I'm not believing that. You're all nice guys you just haven't gotten around to giving us the right to have an abortion while in the military at a base, etc. even though we did ask and all it would take is a simple change in law but that's ok, as long as we don't say anything too sexist. Yeah, I'm being sarcastic because it's sad. I has a sad. We have a system in place to grant us all the right we need. Internationally we could support women in various ways we don't do. You don't have to have the wherewithal, you all could just listen to teh womminz. We know what we need. We petition for it quite often.

SAI2 wrote:

it is a shallow victory

Speak for yurself bub. I'll take my rights any way I can get them. Over men's dead bodies is fine. With a pen is preferable. I don't care. I do not recognize the right of others to take my rights. So therefore anything I chose to do in the course of asserting what I wish for my life is acceptable. I don't recognize a man's right to decide that young women have to notify people to make their decisions about how they will or will not use their body so it bothers me not one iota to help a young woman across state lines to get an abortion. I live this shit, these are real lives. Real consequences. None of my victories are shallow.
You say "if" if we are doing it for the wrong reasons, or are blaming the wrong thing or cause, but that's not my if. Or my priority. I understand this situation. I also live a different life. I live a life that puts me at the clinic or the shelter or the emergency room face to face with proof that I understand this situation and blame the correct parties.

SAI2 wrote:

I would hesitantly and cautiously draw your attention to the bolded part in the middle of your paragraph above.

Sorry, over my head. I am angry because I expect better from men as a group. I expect Rush Limbaugh to get on the radio first thing in the morning and deeply and sincerely apologize. I expect the president to announce that by executive order he's changing it back to where any age women can get any morning after type pill she needs without a prescription. I expect male doctors across the country to refuse to lie to patients and do the invasive procedures that congresses are asking for in cases of women accessing their reproductive care. I expect men to behave with class and style and confidence. I expect that because some fantastic men taught me to expect that behavior and nothing less. I expect that behavior because I don't think men are animals that can't control themselves.

SAI2 wrote:

Which brings up an uncomfortable question that seems to want to surface in me at this juncture; if man's nature is naturally and genetically more brutal, more aggressive, then trying to tame the beast, as it were, is that not a bit like the cruel practice of declawing felines? I hesitantly want to use the word 'denature' here in this context. Males may have certain genetic predispositions to their more 'un-civilized' aspects of their natures that if removed, may cause them as males, harm, no?

Is it? Do you wish to return to lex talionis? I can accept that if that's your proposal. Shit or get off the pot I say, at the very least if we dispensed with all this societal bullshit at least there'd be a chance of some alpha male bringing rights in and it sticking, like Hammurabi did. Now, the down side of that is that if you stop with the whole domestication / declawing thing then you have to deal with not having the institutions that societal contracts create to back you. I don't get backed by those institutions. So I don't care. You personally may not get anything from the patriarchy for whatever reasons so you may not care but I highly doubt you will be able to talk your brethren into that. They have rather focused themselves on preserving their false world. But hey, you have my support on this one, I was never for domestication.

SAI2 wrote:

Now before you get on your horse to do battle, just hear me out.

That's funny because I only saw it after I wrote the above.   

SAI2 wrote:

But it is an interesting question to me. We don't, or shouldn't get angry at our cat for bringing it's dead prey into our homes... we allow felines their natures - they are, after all, felines. Male humans are not. But in principle, we are all a part of the animal kingdom. Should we not be trying to at least find out if denaturing males of certain behaviors isn't going to not only be detrimental to males, but to our species?

Again, completely with you. But again, no one will support this because it means you have to let people be people so there's also no slut shaming and no more guilt and prohibition of drugs, no angst over giving teens condoms. Again, you have my support but we may be like the only two.

SAI2 wrote:

I have distinctly heard the mantra amoung many women today more than ever before - "Where are all the REAL men, the MANLY men, these days. I want to be man-handled. I want a man who KNOWS what he wants and is not afraid to TAKE it... etc".
 

And if you have asked a man to handle you roughly have a safe word and I wish you all the best. But that does not issue permission to remove rights to everyone from congressmen to doctors. All that does is issue permission to the guy I want to be a real man with me.

SAI2 wrote:

I'm simply questioning just how far we go to justifiably accommodate one gender's desires and concerns over another gender's nature.

Well, that sort of depends on whether we are going to go with the whole nature, non declawed thing or the society thing we have now. See, as far as I can see everything about this society is made the fuck up. Now, if you can make up everything from money to copyright law then you can damn sure make up some accommodations. After all how bad is it really hurting Billy Bob for me to have a right to not carry my rapist's child if I'm in the military? How bad is that really imposing on his gender? On a scale of one to ten.
But if we are gonna do the non declawed thing then let's go. We women will find a way and given a bit of modern tech may even have a better chance. But at the very lease I personally would have what it would take to take my rights without the consequences of doing so and I could teach that to others and that would be enough for me in my life.
The way I figure it, when you tame people, when you take us off the land and put us in cubicles and cities you have to give us something for that. You take from me I expect more accomodation. You level the playing field for all by calling for "natural" and that's ok. Thing is, I think men have had an advantage so long you've all forgotten what it was to be on that level playing field and it's gonna be like playing soccer at high altitude. But we'll see.

   

SAI2 wrote:

My first impulse is to say better males get denatured

If that's what it takes to apply that social contract to all evenly then that's sort of on you men. I wasn't asking that. I don't think ya'll are that bad, like I said I still have hope people will come to their senses. But you have no excuses. If we can have a law saying one thing we can have one saying the other. If you men want to call that denatured, hey- who am I to argue.

SAI2 wrote:

What makes a man a man?

Claiming male as an identity. You are male if you say you are. That's it. No big secret.

SAI2 wrote:

The idea of just how much women are responsible for a man's behavior. I don't believe a proper and complete discourse about gender issues can be discussed with just how women are being "yoked" by men, without bringing in the flipside - how men are, and yes, have been... "yoked" by women. Just a thought I'm putting out there.

Well, you can go to some feminist blog and get right on that then. Because I think it's a joke because it's not us that has the power in the dynamic and therefore our ownership of any effect is not really valid. Again, we were never free to act only as we chose according the situation nature placed us in- as men did. We always had nature and men acting on us in ways were potentially serious. I would liken this to the assertions that the conversations about slavery need to include how the Africans sold their fellow Africans into slavery. Well, technically ok, but wow- that's so not really relevant to making sure black people aren't disproportionately targeted in searches. Their ownership of that has little meaning.

 afraid of simply approaching a woman honestly Except for that part. I deny that. I say it's the privilege that allows men to ignore boundaries and personal space and assume the answer is yes until told no. There are a lot of women afraid to approach men honestly for various reasons, i would argue millions. Yet, they don't do those things. Mostly. The chances of getting roofied by a woman are considerably smaller. I have no choice but to think it's less the fear and more the lack of scruples caused by a sense of entitlement to what is desired.

SAI2 wrote:

Firstly, I don't believe all women "hate that crap" as you put it.

Ok. Fine. May the force be with you. Wish you the best of luck with that.

SAI2 wrote:

In fact I know and have known one hell of a lot of women who out right love it and are not afraid to admit as much.

No, you know a lot of women who tell you they love it. I would refer you to my previous statements on how people don't always know their own minds and my House rule. I do know some women who call themselves goddesses and they too would admit that actually putting them on a pedestal is dangerous, no one can live up to that and the pressure is difficult. In fun, in a nickname, in an expression of adoration it's lovely.

SAI2 wrote:

I was also near adolescent before I realized women actually shit.

You didn't have like sixth grade health class or tv or something? Where did you think the food went? I'm sort of curious how you thought that worked.  

SAI2 wrote:

I don't think that same advice should be given to women in the more non-western, sexist, male dominated countries.

Well, no, they need resources not advice.

Look we can do this however much you want but if you go back and read your original post you describe a back and forth dance of women scorned and man with needs and you ask about it and I'm here trying to tel you this is the result of the power dynamic that exists. You took issue with me saying basically, "oh well, that's the situation you put us in". I'm sorry, but that's still the answer. Men don't like sex being a big deal? Don't want to reap what was sown*? Good. Fix it. Tell your buddies you all can start with over the counter birth control.  

*Let's not neglect the fact that your major point is that there were reasons why men ended up with power and reasons/justification/excuses even when completely accurate and mitigating are never a replacement for fixing the problem. Even if your premise were 100% acceptable and correct it would not negate the need for immediate and sweeping grantings of rights and changes in customs.

Jenni wrote:

And read Savage Love if you don't. Do any of you read that? I'd love to know if this chick is violating the GGG rule.

I *LOVE* Dan Savage -- he is a local of course. I've been reading his column since he began, and have all of his books.

His philosophy is a breath of reason in a world gone mad.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Jenni wrote:

And read Savage Love if you don't. Do any of you read that? I'd love to know if this chick is violating the GGG rule.

I *LOVE* Dan Savage --  he is a local of course.  I've been reading his column since he began, and have all of his books.  

His philosophy is a breath of reason in a world gone mad.

Oh good! So you know what I mean about the GGG rule? Yes, I love Savage- like you say a breath of fresh air. I think if you are old enough to be curious about porn you should be reading Savage.

SAI2 wrote:

I haven't, but only because I know she's looking for someone more successful in life than myself. That's something I've neglected to mention

Jenni wrote:

Ah hah!

SAI2 wrote:

but is no less important to what she wants in a partner. Her ideal partner at any rate, if not her one night stand kind

'But is no less important'??!!  Not only is it not less important, it is her imperative.

Jenni wrote:

LIIIISAAAA! We have liftoff. There's the problem right there- tell me I'm wrong.

Oh yeah, we're flying high. 

Jenni wrote:

She has no respect for you, man. (claps hand over mouth)

Jenni wrote:

Lisa's completely sincere. I know her well and adore her. But she almost skips stuff, I think her brain goes faster than her fingers because you almost have to know her and be able to fill in words sometimes. Take her at face value.

Thank you for that.  Because I am sincere when I'm talking to him.  Part of the problem he himself says is, "I always get the feeling you (Lisa) are not being sincere and straightforward, so I hold many of your responses with suspicion."
This only tells me any input I have will be rejected out of hand first, until, (possibly, but not very likely until someone else says it), justified.
Because we both know this isn't really keeping with the nature of this forum, I won't disrupt your threads.

Lisa wrote:

Because we both know this isn't really keeping with the nature of this forum, I won't disrupt your threads.

That's why I addressed that. I think we should all know each other better than that here. This is a small board of people who all knew each other before hand and if we want a nice community here we have to not hold grudges and carry things over and we have to all come to this with an honest openness and a bit of positivity to think that the other person actually is being sincere. That's one reason I don't want the certain types like we had before here (that we all know and I won't name). I think there was a bit of trolling and I think just arguing just be stirring shit isn't necessary. I want everyone to feel valued and at least heard- we don't have to agree with you but we do have to hear you out. I think we are all close enough we owe each other that. And I'm not convinced SAI is unable to see you as sincere I just think his frustration is coloring things a bit right now, as is mine, maybe.

You know I understand what you're saying.  You know I agree.

SAI2 wrote:

and I always get the feeling you (Lisa) are not being sincere and straightforward, so I hold many of your responses with suspicion

His knee-jerk reality (... 'I always'...) based on something even more mysterious, makes me know I won't have a chance to be heard.  I believe whatever advice or small-talk he's searching for, will be best received from the other forum members.  And it's okay.

Jenni wrote:

Lisa wrote:

Because we both know this isn't really keeping with the nature of this forum, I won't disrupt your threads.

That's why I addressed that. I think we should all know each other better than that here. This is a small board of people who all knew each other before hand and if we want a nice community here we have to not hold grudges and carry things over and we have to all come to this with an honest openness and a bit of positivity to think that the other person actually is being sincere. That's one reason I don't want the certain types like we had before here (that we all know and I won't name). I think there was a bit of trolling and I think just arguing just be stirring shit isn't necessary. I want everyone to feel valued and at least heard- we don't have to agree with you but we do have to hear you out. I think we are all close enough we owe each other that. And I'm not convinced SAI is unable to see you as sincere I just think his frustration is coloring things a bit right now, as is mine, maybe.

Jenni, I will get to your previous posts when I have more time, but tonight I feel I need to address this problem between Lisa and I and clear a few things up that are being wrongly assumed.

Firstly, Lisa, I have never once suggested you should not or cannot contribute to my threads or comment on my posts. I have absolutely no problem at all with you doing that. Never have. So please don't feel that just because I am having troubles with your writing, and that I feel this suspicion about your intentions, that you must censor yourself because you think I won't respond to you.

I am telling you right now and with complete sincerity, and I want you to take note of this also Jenni, if I can't comprehend what you've written or why, I will ask and I won't be able to respond properly until you clear it up for me. This difficulty I have at times with your writing doesn't happen all the time. I have been able to respond to some of your posts. But yes, there are unfortunately many times too where I am stumped by what you have said and I need clarification, or alternatively I could ignore those specific posts and not ask, but I feel that would be a disservice to both of us. I want to know what you really mean and intend so I don't have any unwarranted suspicions. I like clarity and understanding. I don't like guessing what a person means and stumbling along hoping I might find out down the road.

So from now on I will always ask, so don't be distressed or surprised by this. I cannot guarantee I will be able to grasp the meaning of everything you are trying to say, but I will do my best and then if stumped, I will ask.

Jenni, I don't believe it is fair to assume everyone should know each other as well as you expect here. Even at the other forum, I didn't read everything everyone wrote, nor did I have the luxury of time to do so. Many of the debates I had at that forum didn't provide me with the kind of information that allows me insight into who people were... to really always get to know about those people. For instance I debated with Markaba a lot, compared to others, but I can't say I really know the guy that well, other than how he behaves in a debate forum and some aspects about his orientation and how he feels about it, etc. But the guy himself as a person in real life? Haven't a clue.
Same with you, NoCo, Lisa, Howard... I have a sense of certain things about you all, but I can't really say with any certainty who you really are as people in real life. I know what many of you like to discuss and how you discuss, and maybe a few personal things, but not much more beyond that.

I remember I liked debating with you all very much. You seem sorta like familiar strangers... if that makes any sense. Familiar strangers I am fond of.

Also, I'm not holding any grudges. I remember having troubles understanding and communicating with Lisa at the other forum. So in a way this doesn't surprise me that it is happening again. She wasn't the only person I had troubles with in this regard, so you're not alone, Lisa. I'll just have to try harder to resolve any difficulties I have with Lisa before things get too out of hand in any thread we both post in.

I hope this post is enough to reassure and resolve any misunderstandings between you and I, Lisa.

As for Jenni, well, she's waiting for me on the battle field with a wooden cross and nails and a big fuckin' hammer, so she can make me suffer for being womanhoods enemy number one...   

SAI2 wrote:

So please don't feel that just because I am having troubles with your writing, and that I feel this suspicion about your intentions, that you must censor yourself because you think I won't respond to you.
... I want to know what you really mean and intend so I don't have any unwarranted suspicions.
... You seem sorta like familiar strangers ... if that makes any sense. Familiar strangers I am fond of.

The feeling is mutual, Stephen.  So number one on the list of things to do, is not to say you're suspicious about the intentions of those who have become 'familiar strangers that you're fond of'.  It makes the other feel as though they've gone back to square one.  And that is so very hard to do.

SAI2 wrote:

I like clarity and understanding. I don't like guessing what a person means and stumbling along hoping I might find out down the road.

Because this forum communicates by way of the written word, it is prudent to obtain clarity of understanding.  Even at the cost of appearing stumped or confused.  There's no one here that would think any less of anyone else, and would quite likely thouroughly enjoy the extra airtime to express themselves more fully.  I know I do.  There, I said it.   Remaining a close knit group of complete strangers is why this was thrown together in the first place, if you recall.   I can think of a few others that it would have been equally comfortable to embrace from the 'other' forum, but they've yet to surface.

SAI2 wrote:

I have a sense of certain things about you all, but I can't really say with any certainty who you really are as people in real life. I know what many of you like to discuss and how you discuss, and maybe a few personal things, but not much more beyond that.

We're about the same age, Stephen... so where are those people you can say with certainty who they really are?  If you've named even one person, you're wrong.  We just do the best we can to understand one another.  Situations bring out different aspects, of course, but in general, going into it with the assumption that no one means to harm you, (until proven to be otherwise), is the absolutely most stress free and appealing way to enter the fray.  And I think you should do a lot more listening with your heart.  It produces far more energy than the brain.  The next time you're physically in a room with others, try to emit the genuinely best intentions, then stand back and watch a line form around you just so they can be in your orbit.  Consider it an experiment.
Okay.  I've probably creeped you out.

SAI2 wrote:

... I'll just have to try harder to resolve any difficulties I have with Lisa before things get too out of hand in any thread we both post in.

Now that kind of shocks me.  That can be an extremly difficult and grown up statement to make.  It humbles me to try harder as well.  A feeling I may not have had, had you not said you wanted something more.  Something better.
See?  It's working already.  Intent is everything.

SAI2 wrote:

I hope this post is enough to reassure and resolve any misunderstandings between you and I, Lisa.

It certainly does.  
And at this point, I'd like to add, the grammatically correct way to say that would have been, '... between you and me'.

<sticks arm out>  Shake.

Jenni wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

However, I would rather be in her life and not have sex, than not be in her life. My fondness for her outweighs any mild resentment I might harbour. I feel anyway.

Ok, I can dig that. But do you a favor and treat it like a smoke detector and check it twice a year. And read Savage Love if you don't.

I haven't read that book, but I used to read Dan Savage's column for a long time, many years ago anyway. Very insightful and I found myself agreeing with most of what he would say. Believe it or not.

Jenni wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

I haven't, but only because I know she's looking for someone more successful in life than myself. That's something I've neglected to mention, but is no less important to what she wants in a partner. Her ideal partner at any rate, if not her one night stand kind of guy.

Ah hah!

LIIIISAAAA! We have liftoff. There's the problem right there- tell me I'm wrong.   

I'll only share my thoughts on this if asked but here is that key that was missing that I said SAI may not even know is important. Now, the picture begins to get some meat on the bones.

She has no respect for you, man. (claps hand over mouth)

Okay, now I need some clarification from you, Jenni. Please elaborate on your whole post above. I do want you to share your response because I'm a little confused by your reaction. Why do you say she has no respect for me?

She is looking for a permanent, long term relationship, yet in the meantime she is also getting some from every prospective candidate whom she speaks with and eventually meets. Compared to me they are strangers. I'm not looking to have a long term romantic relationship with her, just some fun sex, and she knows that too. We have been and always will be good friends... so I'm not going to lie to her and do a fast exit. I'll always be her friend whether we have sex or not. It's not that big a deal to me. I mean, I'd love the sexual intimacy, don't get me wrong, but she wouldn't have to worry about me expecting more because we both know where each of us stands with each other. So I guess I'm confused and disheartened because I'd be an easy and stress free lay for her and she would still enjoy my friendship after the fact, even when she finds her perfect successful man, so the idea that she won't have sex with me because I'm not successful just doesn't seem like a very good excuse. So what if I'm not a successful dude. We'd only be having sex... it's not like she'd have to worry about whether I can afford her lifestyle expectations. If I can be a good enough friend as a poor guy, I think I can be a good enough friend who she can lay with no strings. That's how I see it anyway. All I want is a good, fun time with a good friend. No muss, no fuss.

SAI,
1. Sex changes a relationship. Whether you want it to or not. It is extremely unusual for "fuck buddies" to remain friends for very long because inevitably one partner or the other feels deeper about the relationship and isn't willing to keep it at the FB level.

2. Your friend, by your own admission, is trying out potential long-term partners. She seems to be sleeping with them as part of the interview, but the fact remains, she's looking for love. You, on the other hand, just want "like" and she knows that and she already "likes" you back. You're not up for a job interview.

3. Instead of "not respecting you" consider the opposite -- maybe she respects you too much, knows you too well, knows that if she were to FYBO the friendship would inevitably shatter. Maybe she values your counsel and companionship too much to risk it by inviting you to her bed, knowing that she'd then have to invite you OUT of her bed, because AFASCT you're not what she's looking for in a LTP. She's not looking for a FB, like you are.

NoCo, I agree with 3... seems like a very reasonable point. 2, I don't know. Maybe I guess. 1 however just doesn't wash to me, at least not for her and me. I'd agree with you if we were talking others, and others who weren't as old as we are and others who had little if any sex. But each of us has. I suspect it is possible she might even be afraid that sex might deepen our emotional attachment - and that is of course not what she wants since I am not in her "successful enough" category. (...and I'm willing to bet some of her interviewees aren't either).

... but I guess all 3 points considered, I see what you are saying. Just seems a shame to me that's all. (... hell, we don't have to be FB's. One nice intimate evening would do me just fine).

SAI2 wrote:

we don't have to be FB's. One nice intimate evening would do me just fine).

From the sounds of it she's not having any trouble finding plumbers to snake her drain.

Again, and I mentioned this to Jenni once I think. I suspect some of what you say is spot on. I suspect though too... she's afraid to just tell me she isn't sexually attracted to me. I bet it's just that simple. She has told me more than once I am a very sexy, attractive looking guy, and that she's sure any woman I find will be very happy with me...

That last point is what sticks in my gut, and my heart, ever so subtle-y.

Yeah I had the same problem with Margie. She loved hanging around me, always was very complimentary to me, even helped me write personals ads to aid in my search -- but would not sleep with me.  

Oh well, that's her choice.  And her loss!

OTOH there was an friend of mine named Margo. She and I were platonic friends for a couple of years, until one time we were discussing cunnilingus techniques. She'd never heard of some of my favorite tricks, and a couple days later rang me up to say she couldn't get them out of her head. She came over that night for a demonstration.

And it ruined our friendship.

Was your technique a little off that day?
Pretty harsh of her.

No, she liked the mustache ride. But it made things weird between us, and shortly thereafter I met Mrs NoCo so it seemed expedient to let the awkwardness be.

Margie, Margo, and NoCo...  do da cunnilingooooh.....  

... wit da moustachioooh...

SAI2 wrote:

Jenni, I don't believe it is fair to assume everyone should know each other as well as you expect here. Even at the other forum, I didn't read everything everyone wrote, nor did I have the luxury of time to do so. Many of the debates I had at that forum didn't provide me with the kind of information that allows me insight into who people were... to really always get to know about those people. For instance I debated with Markaba a lot, compared to others, but I can't say I really know the guy that well, other than how he behaves in a debate forum and some aspects about his orientation and how he feels about it, etc. But the guy himself as a person in real life? Haven't a clue.
Same with you, NoCo, Lisa, Howard... I have a sense of certain things about you all, but I can't really say with any certainty who you really are as people in real life. I know what many of you like to discuss and how you discuss, and maybe a few personal things, but not much more beyond that.

I remember I liked debating with you all very much. You seem sorta like familiar strangers... if that makes any sense. Familiar strangers I am fond of.

I'd like to think we still had enough contact to know that we are all approaching this with the best of intentions. If not, then hopefully, that trust will build.

SAI2 wrote:

As for Jenni, well, she's waiting for me on the battle field with a wooden cross and nails and a big fuckin' hammer, so she can make me suffer for being womanhoods enemy number one...

Yeah, um, speaking of misunderstandings......   

So number one on the list of things to do, is not to say you're suspicious about the intentions
Yes! See, this is where my issue came in. Needing clarification is fine. Go to it. But if we - any of us- start really questioning if the person is sincere then we lose a lot. We lose the ability to feel like a community, we lose trust to know the other person isn't wasting our time and trolling us, we lose trust in what the other person says down to the core of the argument or the link they present. It's just sort of toxic and I hope it will quickly prove unnecessary skepticism on the part of any party who entertains it. I'd like to aim higher even if we can't always reach it for the real reasons SAI points out.

SAI2 wrote:

Okay, now I need some clarification from you, Jenni. Please elaborate on your whole post above. I do want you to share your response because I'm a little confused by your reaction. Why do you say she has no respect for me?

Lisa should chime in on this as well. I wish we had more women because I'm not certain I have the vocabulary to support this explanation. If for some reason a woman has defined you as unsuccessful (a scrub) then yes, it makes you not datable, way less fuckable. Whether it's debt or a baby mama you don't pay or just a lack of ability to keep a job, most women just do not want an unsuccessful male. You can cite any number of biological and societal factors for this. It puts you in the "waste of her time" category.

In the paragraph that follows you present this as a win-win, but clearly for her it's not. From my point of view as a woman still out there, the easy lay isn't as important to her, she can get what she needs with a good set of batteries and the time the two of you and all the little things that follow would take out of her search for potential mates is apparently not worth it to her. Or she would have already done it. To you it's like "I just don't get it" but to her it's just where her focus is. How she needs to order her life.

SAI2 wrote:

Instead of "not respecting you" consider the opposite -- maybe she respects you too much, knows you too well, knows that if she were to FYBO the friendship would inevitably shatter. Maybe she values your counsel and companionship too much to risk it by inviting you to her bed, knowing that she'd then have to invite you OUT of her bed, because AFASCT you're not what she's looking for in a LTP. She's not looking for a FB, like you are.

I like this suggestion too. But I also feel the need to be ralistic about how women looking for mates are. Money matters because it reflects stability and the ability to handle your business.

SAI2 wrote:

others who had little if any sex. But each of us has.

"She's slutty but not with me!" I so both understand this and yet find it incredibly entitled. omg *puts head on desk* ok, ok,

Jenni wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

Jenni, I don't believe it is fair to assume everyone should know each other as well as you expect here. Even at the other forum, I didn't read everything everyone wrote, nor did I have the luxury of time to do so. Many of the debates I had at that forum didn't provide me with the kind of information that allows me insight into who people were... to really always get to know about those people. For instance I debated with Markaba a lot, compared to others, but I can't say I really know the guy that well, other than how he behaves in a debate forum and some aspects about his orientation and how he feels about it, etc. But the guy himself as a person in real life? Haven't a clue.
Same with you, NoCo, Lisa, Howard... I have a sense of certain things about you all, but I can't really say with any certainty who you really are as people in real life. I know what many of you like to discuss and how you discuss, and maybe a few personal things, but not much more beyond that.

I remember I liked debating with you all very much. You seem sorta like familiar strangers... if that makes any sense. Familiar strangers I am fond of.

I'd like to think we still had enough contact to know that we are all approaching this with the best of intentions. If not, then hopefully, that trust will build.

I'm sure trust will build over time, and you can like what you think about having enough contact to know... but there is the rub. Some of us may not know as you would like to think we should know. I always assume in the beginning that someone will approach a thread with the best of intentions, and that may be a reasonable assumption to make even with strangers. But as a thread or argument evolves, attitudes can change and tone can change and intentions can derail and become subtley vindictive or obtuse. What we used to perceive as good intent then can lead us to suspicion. Try as we might, our path along good intention lane slowly morphs underneath our feet sometimes. We all have to be prepared for the possibility that we fallible humans not only do not see each other the same way, but that we may no longer see or be seen in the ideal "community" hive mind of good intentions.

Jenni wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

As for Jenni, well, she's waiting for me on the battle field with a wooden cross and nails and a big fuckin' hammer, so she can make me suffer for being womanhoods enemy number one...

Yeah, um, speaking of misunderstandings......   

That was intended as a tongue and cheek fun comment. It was partly me teasing you, but also partly an exaggerated expression of how I felt when I wrote it; i.e. persecuted. If you are going to hold me suspect when I try to lighten the mood with a bit of teasing humor, then we need to define the parameters of good intent and justified suspicion. After all, you are a mod here. I don't want to be banned for simply being me, regardless of the subjectivity/relativity of each of our good intentions.

Jenni wrote:

Lisa wrote:

So number one on the list of things to do, is not to say you're suspicious about the intentions

Yes! See, this is where my issue came in. Needing clarification is fine. Go to it. But if we - any of us- start really questioning if the person is sincere then we lose a lot. We lose the ability to feel like a community, we lose trust to know the other person isn't wasting our time and trolling us, we lose trust in what the other person says down to the core of the argument or the link they present. It's just sort of toxic and I hope it will quickly prove unnecessary skepticism on the part of any party who entertains it. I'd like to aim higher even if we can't always reach it for the real reasons SAI points out.

Problem there is, like I suggested above, we can start with the best of intentions, as I always assume we all try to do, but then our path can morph beneath our feet. I try to assume always that the person I'm debating with is being sincere, honest, etc. But sometimes the nature of argument and debate can be such that those involved slowly and subtley derail, and not always consciously. We are only human. Suspicion is a natural feeling and attitude that can come up when we simply perceive, correctly or not, that our partner in argument may not be, in that exact moment, being as good intentioned or sincere as we assumed previously.

Lisa did a wonderful thing by responding as she did to my previous post. It went a long way to reassuring me that she intends for the time being, good intention. I will do my best to assume good intent from her from now on, but it wouldn't be fair of me to assume that she can or will sustain this any more than it would be fair to assume the same from myself or anyone else. We do the best we can. But it may rear its ugly head once again... who's to say?

Jenni wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

Okay, now I need some clarification from you, Jenni. Please elaborate on your whole post above. I do want you to share your response because I'm a little confused by your reaction. Why do you say she has no respect for me?

Lisa should chime in on this as well. I wish we had more women because I'm not certain I have the vocabulary to support this explanation. If for some reason a woman has defined you as unsuccessful (a scrub) then yes, it makes you not datable, way less fuckable. Whether it's debt or a baby mama you don't pay or just a lack of ability to keep a job, most women just do not want an unsuccessful male. You can cite any number of biological and societal factors for this. It puts you in the "waste of her time" category.

In the paragraph that follows you present this as a win-win, but clearly for her it's not. From my point of view as a woman still out there, the easy lay isn't as important to her, she can get what she needs with a good set of batteries and the time the two of you and all the little things that follow would take out of her search for potential mates is apparently not worth it to her. Or she would have already done it. To you it's like "I just don't get it" but to her it's just where her focus is. How she needs to order her life.

That seems reasonable.  

Jenni wrote:

Nocopilot wrote:

Instead of "not respecting you" consider the opposite -- maybe she respects you too much, knows you too well, knows that if she were to FYBO the friendship would inevitably shatter. Maybe she values your counsel and companionship too much to risk it by inviting you to her bed, knowing that she'd then have to invite you OUT of her bed, because AFASCT you're not what she's looking for in a LTP. She's not looking for a FB, like you are.

I like this suggestion too. But I also feel the need to be realistic about how women looking for mates are. Money matters because it reflects stability and the ability to handle your business.

I still don't see what bearing this has on having a nice evening of sex. Having sex does not imply commitment to anything. Or, at least it shouldn't. I would have thought you would agree with that much; from a liberated woman's perspective. ironically, you seem to be painting women as being unable to share their bodies intimately unless they have a partner with wealth. If I'm broke or if I'm a millionaire, shouldn't matter to having a fling. Also though, what we mean by "poor" and "success" is important here. I may be considered poor in Saudi Arabia or Beverly Hills, but I may be seen as rich in the worst slums of India or South America. Clearly, I am not wealthy or successful enough to my friend here where we live. She wants more of what she perceives as successfulness and wealth from a prospective long term, commited partnership, which we both know isn't what each of us want from the other. If during her "interview and date process" she determines that the man has not reached that level of wealth or success she expects, but then has sex with him anyway and afterward shows him the door, then there is no reason, in principle, why she cannot have a fling with me, as long as she is being honest that I am sexy and attractive to her... My lack of success should have no bearing.

I have a full time job. I can pay for any date expenses we may have at any restaurant in the city, or any club, or any form of entertainment venue. I do not own a car, but I have access to one. I do not own a house. Aside from our slight differences in gross income, (she makes slightly more than I do) we are identical in terms of relative poorness or success.

Money matters and should matter for the reasons you point out - if the persons want a commited long term relationship.

If not, a few hours in the sack ain't gonna make no difference one way or the other.  

Jenni wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

others who had little if any sex. But each of us has.

"She's slutty but not with me!" I so both understand this and yet find it incredibly entitled. omg *puts head on desk* ok, ok,

I don't think I'm entitled to anything, not even a reason why. The more I think about this, the more I am convinced she won't tell me she's not attracted to me physically because she's afraid I will no longer be her friend.